Full text of "A souvenir of the unveiling of the Richmond howitzer monument, at Richmond, Virginia, December 13th, 1892 : address of Mr. Leigh Robinson, with rolls of the three companies and lists of battles"

See other formats

f^n t i^^rv* < \<\ nTTr

The

T T T T T

Howitzers.

TTVTVTVVTTTTT

•£l~ 186M865. ••&•

■'■■ m^WL »t C«cag<M«lW»

COJWPIiHWHrtTS.

fciiteetoiry Publishers and t^bteira, ,

CAPITAL, $500,000.

SORPLDS, $235,000.

THE

STATEBMIFISII

JOHN S. ELLETT, WM. M. HILL,

President. Cashier.

-4* DIRECTORS: •#-

WILLIAM D. GIBSON,
A. G. BABCOCK,
WILLIAM E. TANNER,
ALEX. CAMERON,
PETER H. MAYO,

JOHN TYLER,

JOS. M. FOURQUREAN^

JOHN S. ELLETT,

W. MILES CARY,

T. C. WILLIAMS, Jr.,.

GRANVILLE G. VALENTINE.

ZoLL

Digitized by the Internet Archive

in 2012 with funding from

The Institute of Museum and Library Services through an Indiana State Library LSTA Grant

http://www.archive.org/details/souvenirofunveilOOconf

W CanyEMOfS&TE

tm §mm km stmmm

m ;..■,-■• '.%

THE IHSHMOT MSWIT2E8S -

or the pzmw

• . 188H8SS.

A SOUVENIR

OF THE

Unveiling of the

Richmond Howitzer

Monument

RICHMOND, VIRGINIA,

December 13th, 1892.

Address of Mr. Leigh Robinson,

WITH

Rolls of the Three Companies and Lists of Battles.

1893.

. THE PARADE,

AND

THE ADDRESS AND CEREMONIES.

The unveiling of the Howitzer monument on December 13,
1892, was the consummation of long-cherished plans on the
part of the Richmond Howitzer Association.

The splendid figure stands as an object lesson in history to
the descendants of these -men, whose valiant deeds, no less than
the memory of their comrades who fell in battle, are commem-
orated by its graceful lines.

The young cannoneer now stands on the triangular lot at the
intersection of Grove avenue and Harrison street, to be known
in all time as Howitzer Place — a figure of symmetry and beauty,
an ornament to the surroundings, and a pleasing object for the
eye of every passer-by to rest upon.

The deeper meaning of this memorial, so beautifully wrought
in stone and bronze, was appreciated by all when it was ex-
posed to view, and it was more completely responded to in the
hearts of the old Howitzers than any emotion which has moved
these veterans for many a day.

The occasion was one of sacred devotion, and, though the
weather was unpropitious, the programme was carried out in
detail with an earnest purpose that made it a perfect success.

The Howitzer Association and the Howitzer Artillery Com-
pany assembled at the armory at 1:30 P. M., and, headed by
the Howitzer Band, marched to the Richmond Theatre, where
the simple, but highly impressive, ceremonies preliminary to
the unveiling took place. The lower part of the building was
occupied by the Howitzer Association and company and the

Confederate veterans of Lee and Pickett camps. The dress
circle and proscenium boxes were filled with an interested audi-
ence, many of whom were ladies.

The only decorations were the colors of the artillery and the
blue banner of the Association.

Mr. J. B. Moore, president of the Association, presided, and
the following gentlemen were among those upon the stage :
Bishop Randolph, Hon. J. Taylor Ellyson, Judge George L.
Christian, F. D. Hill, Thomas Booker, Carlton McCarthy,
Joseph M. Fourqurean, W. L. Sheppard, James T. Gray, E.
M. Crump, Captain B. Lorraine, D. S. McCarthy, Major W.
B. Smith, Major H. C. Carter, Colonel John C. Shields, Rev.
W. M. Dame, W. L. White, Colonel W. E. Cutshaw, Colonel
G. Percy Hawes, Rev. Dr. W. W. Landrum (chaplain of the
Howitzers), H. M. Starke, R. S. Bosher, Thomas H. Starke,
and others.

The president introduced Rev. W. M. Dame, who, being a
minister of the Episcopal Church, suggested that the ceremo-
nies commence with repeating the Apostles' Creed and the
Lord's Prayer.

This peculiar and impressive beginning was followed by an
earnest prayer, the utterances of which met with responsive
amens in the hearts of every Howitzer present. The petition
was feeling and appropriate.

Mr. W. L. White introduced the orator of the occasion, and
in doing so said :

Mr. President, Ladies, and Gentlemen:

Proud of the distinguished honor conferred upon me by the
Association, I present to you with pleasure and satisfaction the
silver-tongued orator of the Howitzer battalion, as brave and
chivalrous in war as he has become renowned in peace.

At the battle of "Bethel" (it will be remembered), the first
land engagement of the war, the Howitzers received their bap-
tism of fire ; there the Confederates successfully met and re-
pulsed the Federals with odds of from three to four against
one, driving them panic-stricken back to the guns of ' ' Fortress

Monroe," leaving their dead and wounded upon the field from
which they were driven. Among the prominent men killed
were Lieutenant Grebble, commanding the Federal artillery, and
Major Winthrop, of Boston, commander of the famous "Billy
Wilson Zouaves, ' ' and I may be pardoned for saying here that
a braver man never drew sword in any cause. The next day
a ' ' Flag of Truce ' ' was sent for his body, with the inquiry
from General Butler, ' ' What artillery was that which did such
magnificent firing and execution ? ' ' General Magruder smiled
and said, ' ' Why, sir, it was nothing but a parcel of school-
boys, with primers in their pockets ' ' ; and true it was, for but
few of them had reached the age of manhood.

It is of these boys and their heroism,, from Bethel to Appo-
mattox, that our distinguished orator will speak to you this
afternoon, and while one of -the battalion survives, who can re-
call and recite the deeds of daring of the Confederates dead
and living, it can never be said of the honored dead —

Out of the world's way, out of its light,

Out of the ages of worldly weather —
Made one with death, filled full of the night,

Forgotten as the world's first dead are forgotten.

We have read of the valor of the heroes of Marathon, Ther-
mopylae, and Ancient Macedonia, but, Mr. President, I have
the honor to present to this audience this afternoon not only a
gifted orator, but a "Virginian" (to the manor born), a How-
itzer, and a hero of one of the grandest armies ever marshalled
upon the field of battle. To this large and cultivated audience
he needs no further introduction, and I present to you Mr.
Leigh Robinson, an adopted citizen of Washington city.

Mr. Robinson spoke without referring to his manuscript, and
held his comrades in arms spell-bound for more than an hour.
The attention was breathless except when references were made
to the heroism of those in whose memory they met, and then
shouts of approval were heartily given. A neat compliment
was paid to Mr. W. L. Sheppard, the artist who designed the
monument.

Mr. Robinson spoke in measured voice, and it was only at
the most emotional points that he used a few graceful gestures
to enforce the impressiveness of his words. The speech was
in every way appropriate to and worthy of the occasion. It
was as follows :

My Friends and Fellow- Howitzers :

I cannot better introduce what I have to say than by the
words of a legend of the East : ' ' When the lofty and barren
mountain was first upheaved into the sky, and from its eleva-
tion looked down on the plains below, and saw the valleys and
less elevated hills covered with verdant and fruitful trees, it sent
up to Brahma something like a murmur of complaint. Why
thus barren ? Why these scarred and naked sides exposed to
the eye of man ? And Brahma answered : The very light shall
clothe thee, and the shadow of the passing cloud shall be as a
royal mantle. More verdure would be less light. Thou shalt
share in the azure of heaven, and the youngest and whitest
cloud of the summer's sky shall nestle in thy bosom. Thou
belongest half to us,"

"So was the mountain dowered, and so, too," adds the
legend, ' ' have the loftiest minds of men been in all ages dow-
ered. To lower elevations have been given the pleasant ver-
dure, the vine, and the olive. Light, light alone, and the
deep shadow of the passing cloud — these are the gifts of the
prophets of the race."

And so, I will add, so is it with the eminences of self-sacri-
fice. Out of convulsive wrestle are they lifted. The winds
and the rains contemn them. The hail strips them bare. The
lightning by which they are torn is their scepter. The tents
of the tempest are pitched on all their summits of endeavor,
and the deep scar of the tempest signed upon their brow is
their diadem. And yet, as the mountains are the backbone of
the earth, and put their own chains on the continents which
anchor to them, making our earth an earth of mountains, so
from age to age the true heart rallies to the moral eminences
of which I speak. All that is soundest in us clings with a vol-

untary homage to the suffering heights. Consciously or uncon-
sciously the high instinct of mankind receives their lofty yoke.
Heaven and earth mingle on their summits. Over the wide
landscape of humanity falls the eloquence of their light and
their shadow. Infinitely true is it, ' ' To bear is to conquer. ' '
Never was constancy so perfect and so pure as that of the
people of the South to their warriors. For once gratitude to
the past is not inspired by the hope of favors to come. The
mercenary motive is curiously absent. The knee which bends,
the heart which throbs, is the welcome of respect to the intrin-
sically worthy — the unbought homage never truly known, save
by virtue in misfortune, when like a queen, but like a queen in
exile, she counts the number of her suitors by the poverty of
her reward. This is the proud pathos of defeat with honor.
Thus heroes conquer even in their fall. So reign their ashes,
"dead, but sceptered."

THE STORY'S PURITY.

It were sad indeed if no word could be spoken in behalf of
that ' ' story' s purity, " the justification whereof is now removed
from the forum of arms to the bar of history and the scales of
time and truth. The story of anti-slavery agitation to-day
is written for the world by the enemies of the South, and truth
is not always the weapon of their choice. We are the camp of
slaves ; they are the camp of freedom. The victor is wont to
have his own pleasant version of the cause, which has been ac-
cepted by stoic fate, if not by Cato's justice. That in the middle
of the nineteenth century there were many opposed to slavery
is certainly no matter for surprise, and as little for condemna-
tion. It may seem, indeed, a slight inconsistency that every
one of the colonies which joined in the Declaration of Inde-
pendence was at the time a slave-holding colony. Neverthe-
less it is the fact that each shared a common responsibility
therefor, which differed in degree with the differing utility
thereof. The issue between the North and the South was not
so much an issue between freedom and slavery, as the issue
whether those who had formed a federal compact with slave-

holding States, upon an agreement not to interfere with their
slaves, had any greater right to do so, than they had in the
case of Cuba and Brazil, with whom they had no such com-
pact. The supreme issue was whether the United States Gov-
ernment was one of such unlimited authority that it could do
what it pleased, by giving fine names to usurpation, as, when
the guest at a hotel complains that the brand he wants has not
been brought, the waiter before his eyes rubs off the undesired
label and puts on the desired one. The real issue was whether,
under the fine name of " general welfare," the whole power of
the Government could be perverted to private welfare, and
whether, in keeping with the Federal compact, under the fine
name of freedom, commonwealths could be extinguished. So
far as slavery was concerned, a century hence history will
chiefly discover a race between the very lightly and very
heavily encumbered, and the great self-applause of the former
that they were the first to reach the goal. It is not so exact to
say that slavery in the South was the cause of the war, as to say
that it afforded an opportunity for the war. It is proper to
bear in mind the abrupt revolution of society which was de-
manded by those who would be themselves unaffected by the
revolution.

The first book of Justinian, which gives us our definition of
justice — -justitia est constans et perpetua voluntas jus suunt
cuique tribuendi — gives also the derivation of slavery — servi
autem ex eo appellati sunt quod imperatores captivos vendere,
ac per hoc servare non occidere solent; qui etiam mancipia dicti
sunt, eo quod abhostibus manu capiuntur. A strong man has
his antagonist at his mercy, is able to take the life of him ;
rather than suffer him to live antagonist will do so. In human-
ity's great internecine war, wherein survival is conquered by
exterminating hostility, root and branch, the conqueror leads
back the captive of his spear. Their relations are those of
victor and victim. The fact of supremacy has been settled and,
by the rule of primitive war, one life is forfeit to the other.
When, then, the victor did not slay, but spared the victim and
suffered him to live, not as a rival, to be sure, but as subject ; to

retributively serve in return for the life which had been donated,
and was gratuity — it was the very charity of a redeeming gos-
pel, breaking through the crust of " old dispensations," of an
eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth, tempering with the hand
of mercy the iron hand. It is not extravagant to say that this
was the first redeeming sign in the storm and terrible joy of
war. The stronger included the weaker ; the two were co-
operant; social, not dissocial. Their blows, no longer rival,
rang in unison, each sending the other farther. It was a large
concession to humanity when Caesar, at the battle of Pharsalia,
granted permission to every man in his army to save one
enemy. Only the nomad life existed until servitude existed.
The ' ' mighty hunter ' ' had no accumulated spoil wherewith to
feed dependents. Outside of his limited, mutable camp his
hand was against every man, and every man's against him.
.No civilization could ripen in the saddle of the Bedouin, or
under his restless tents. He neither plants nor builds. That
which to-day were the incurable evil of society — that it be sta-
tionary— in the beginning, was the one anchor of hope ; that
the human group should stay in one place long enough to catch
the contagion of humanity. Property in the soil arose with
property in man. All progress, all empire, all the law, and
all the piety of the ancient times grew up around this centre.
Competition, as a motive force, is about coeval with the im-
pulses thrown into the great world scales by the voyage of
Columbus. Voluntary co-operation has just begun. There
was no permanent property until there was permanent force,
nor continuous production until there was servitude. This was
the inexorable necessity of civilized life. Prior to it man can-
not be said to have even lived by bread. But by it man planted
himself behind the stone wall, on which has grown the moss of
ages, and ceased himself to be the rolling stone which gathers
no increase. He stood upon the ancient ways and boundaries,
and said to the predatory nomad without : ' ' Thus far, and no
farther. ' ' The stability of agriculture came for the first time
when men could be fastened to the soil and forced to work it ;
when unanimity of labor had been acquired.

The army of labor, like the army of battle, was first victori-
ous when it poured its sinew and its fire from the iron energy
of a single will. It was the slaveholder, and only the slave-
holder, who could take up the fifth part of the land of Egypt
and store it against the years of famine. It was from agricul-
ture that the city sprang ; after which man was no longer de-
pendent, like the wild beast, upon the lair of nature. The first
great stride of progress which carried man to civilized perma-
nence was borne upon the back of slaves. However rude,
however violent this origin, the substance of it was the protec-
tion by strength of weakness, which could not save itself, and
the unconditional service of that weakness to its only savior.
Slavery meant salvation.

BASIS OF CIVILIZATION.

On this agricultural basis and organized social strength all
ancient civilization was reared, and on this same organiza-
tion modern Europe had been formed. For six thousand
years slavery had been the customary law of the civilized
world. Undoubtedly the elements existed of another structure
of society, which may be considered to have been prophesied
from the beginning by the very nature of a being organized to
communicate, and still more certainly included in the realiza-
tion of the era which displaced Caesar's tribute. This is the
movement, much retarded, oft reversed, but the inevitable,
and, on the whole, invincible, movement toward the reign of
commerce. But the retirement and disappearance of the old
supremacy has been a very slow retreat — inch by inch stub-
bornly contested. Not until the memory of men now living
did the scepter decisively pass from the agricultural dominion,
and slavery was not doubtful until that scepter began to waver.
In 1713 the twelve judges of England, headed by Chief-Justice
Holt, replied to the Crown : "In pursuance of His Majesty's
order in counsel, hereunto annexed, we do humbly certify our
opinion to be that negroes are merchandise." During the
whole of the eighteenth century England reserved to herself,
by the treaty of Utrecht, the monopoly of importing negroes

to all the Spanish colonies — that is to say, to nearly all South
America. The fact is noted, by the annotator of Talleyrand' s
Memoirs, that when the English colonies had a proportion of
twenty blacks to one white, it occurred to them to be indignant
at the immorality of the traffic. The declaration that the slave
trade was repugnant to universal morals was signed by the
European Powers, for the first time, at the Congress of Vienna,
and not then by Portugal or Spain.

But, such is the irony of fate ! there was one country of the
world, and that a purely agricultural dominion, which, in the
eighteenth century, opposed itself to slavery with all the power
it could wield. That country was Virginia, the patriarch of
the colonies. Slavery had been forced upon Virginia, and in
the teeth of her remonstrance, by the arbitrary power of Great
Britain. Twenty-three statutes were passed by the House of
Burgesses to prevent the importation of slaves, and all were
negatived by the British king. Virginia was the first State
to prohibit the slave trade, under heavy penalties. The only
qualification to this statement is that Georgia, under Orgle-
thorpe, did prohibit the introduction of African slaves until
1752, when the proprietors surrendered the charter and it be-
came part of the Royal Government. In 1749, the evangelist
Whitfield wrote: "One negro has been given me; some
more I propose to purchase this week." "This confirms me
in the opinion that Georgia never can be a flourishing prov-
ince without negroes are allowed. " * In the midst of the Revo-

*At an early period, permission was given to any Connecticut planter, injured by
an Indian, "to ship him to the West Indies and exchange him for neagers." In
1759, the legal representatives of the eminent moralist, metaphysician, and divine,
Jonathan Edwards, of Connecticut, by a bill of sale, and for a valuable considera-
tion, transferred the title to two negro slaves, viz., Jo and Su his wife, "which
slaves were lately the proper goods of said Jonathan Edwards, deceased, and were
by him bought of one Hezekiah Griswold, of Windsor ; and we, the said Timothy
Dwight, Jr , and Timothy Edwards, do covenant," &c. In 1764, when the sugar act
was threatened by the British Government, the merchants of Boston and the mer-
chants of New London remonstrated against the act, for the reason, amongst others,
that it prevented the exportation of " rum distilled here to Africa to purchase slaves
for the West India market." One of the Senators of Rhode Island, in 1821, James
D' Wolf, was himself largely engaged in the slave trade, and resigned his seat in 1825,
that he might remove to Havana to become the president of a slave-trading com-
pany.

lution, as early as October, 1778, the law of Virginia went forth
that thereafter no slaves should be imported by sea or land into
the jurisdiction of her Commonwealth. One of 'her first acts,
when she had shaken from her the power of the throne, was
to write that edict of emancipation for territory of her own,
which she ever denied was in the power of any one to write
for her. She wrote it for the territory which her enterprise and
valor had wrested from the grasp of France. Whatever she
might choose to do herself, it were hard to conceive a more
arrogant claim than that the North could deprive her of an
equal right in the territory of her own donation. Even in re-
spect to this territory, the agreement of Virginia was without
any equivalent whatever, and the ordinary principles of nudum
pactum might have been applied to it. The Treaty of Inde-
pendence with Great Britain, in 1783, carefully stipulated that
the British should not carry away "any negroes or other prop-
erty of the American inhabitants," as afterwards the Treaty of
Ghent, in 1814, spoke of "slaves or other private property."
At the former period, certainly, no authoritative expression of
the thirteen colonies would have denied that there was prop-
erty in man. It is true, that in those States where negro labor
was unfriended by the climate, and therefore unprofitable to
the master, the slaves were few, and at the date of the Consti-
tution slavery had virtually worn out in Massachusetts. This
influence of soil and climate, following in the tow of the subtler
and deeper force now swiftly growing to man's estate — the ris-
ing force, one might say, the rising world of commerce — these
potent persuasions were already combining to force the issue
between the former and the latter reign. The Constitution of
the United States was, therefore, a distinct bargain between the
North and the South for the security of slave property ; for
which a redundant consideration was received by the former,
in the control and regulation of commerce, by a simple ma-
jority, instead of a two-thirds vote. From Virginia came the
chief opposition to the continuance of the slave trade. That
trade was continued for twenty years, not by the vote of the
solid South, but of a solid New England. " Twenty years, "

exclaimed Madison, ' ' will produce all the mischief that can be
apprehended from the liberty to import slaves. ' ' And George
Mason rebuked the melancholy choice of Mammon, for that
"some of our Eastern brethren had, from a lust of gain, en-
gaged in this nefarious traffic." With a prophet's majesty he
implored the South to reject the provision extorted as a price
of this concession, the provision to pass commercial laws by
simple majorities. This, he said, "would be to deliver the
South, bound hand and foot, to the Eastern States, and enable
them to say, in the words of Cromwell on a certain occasion :
' The Lord hath delivered them into our hands. ' ' '

A NEFARIOUS TRAFFIC.

Public opinion had as yet experienced no violent displace-
ment as to the merchantable quality of negroes, for the very-
States in which slavery itself had ceased, or was ceasing to exist,
were those most actively engaged in the traffic in slaves.*

In the original draft of the Declaration of Independence Jef-
ferson had denounced the king for warring against human
nature. "Determined to keep an open market where men
should be bought and sold, he has prostituted his negative for
suppressing every legislative attempt to prohibit or to restrain
this execrable traffic, and that this assemblage of horrors might
want no fact of distinguished dye, he is now exciting these very
people to rise in arms amongst us and to purchase that liberty
of which he had deprived them, by murdering the people on
whom he has obtruded them. ' ' This denunciation was stricken
out partly in deference to South Carolina and Georgia. ' ' But, ' '
adds Jefferson, "our Northern brethren also, I believe, felt a

*A dispatch from Hartford, Conn., to the Boston Herald says : Many of Connecti-
cut's old-time Abolitionists have greeted Jason Brown, son of John Brown, the mar-
tyr of Harper's Ferry, who has been visiting here for two or three days past. * *
In referring to the slavery question he gives this significant opinion : " I believe that
slavery was a sectional evil, and that the people of the North were as much to blame
for its long continuance as the people of the South. Why? Because the old slave
States of Massachusetts, Connecticut, Rhode Island, New York, and Pennsylvania,
when they found slavery no longer profitable, sold their slaves to other people of the
South and pocketed the money. To be sure, a few liberated their slaves— notice-
ably, the Quakers."— Baltimore Sun, June 2, 1891.

little tender under these censures, for though their people had
very few slaves themselves, yet they had been pretty consid-
erable carriers of them to others." But no similar tenderness
had operated to exclude the substance of this protest, from the
preamble to the Constitution of Virginia, which had been adopted
the preceding month, and which, among other perversions of
the kingly office, which justified the separation and independ-
ence of Virginia, alleges this : "By prompting our negroes to
rise in arms among us, those very negroes, whom by an inhu-
man use of his negative, he hath refused us permission to
exclude bylaw." The importation of slaves into the South
was continued by Northern merchants and Northern ships
until it was prohibited by the spontaneous action of the
Southern States themselves, which preceded or was contem-
poraneous with the legislation of Congress in 1807. Ante-
cedent to the adoption of the Constitution, South Carolina
passed an act prohibiting, under severe penalties, the importa-
tion of negroes from Africa. In 1803 this act was repealed, for
the reason assigned in Congress by Mr. Lowndes, that it was
impossible, without aid from the General Government, "to
prevent our Eastern brethren from introducing them into the
country. Had we received," he said, " the necessary aid from
Congress, the repeal would never, in my opinion, have taken
place. * * * * I wish the time had arrived when Con-
gress could legislate conclusively on the subject." I fail to find
the evidence that property in man was an obnoxious doctrine
at the North until property in man wholly ceased there to be
lucrative. Small as the number of slaves necessarily was to
the north of Maryland, in several of them slavery existed for
more than fifty years after the adoption of the Constitution.
Where the interest was so limited and the emancipation so
gradual no great shock to society could well occur, especially
as in the bulk of cases the emancipator, with no qualms of con-
science whatever, received the full value of his slaves from those
who bought them. The historian, Bancroft, is authority for
the statement that more slaves were emancipated by last will
and testament in Virginia than were ever set free in Pennsyl-

vania or Massachusetts.* Moreover, emancipation in the North,
when it came, was accompanied by no recognition of equality.
Prior to 1861 no negro in Massachusetts had ever been a mem-
ber of its Legislature, or served upon the jury or in the militia,
or been appointed to any office beyond one of menial grade.
This was freedom with the recognition and opportunity of free-
dom severely omitted — "the name of freedom graven on a
heavier chain" — heavier because it was the expression of a
more invincible barrier than that of law, and breathed a more
superlative scorn. In the second volume of his commentaries
Chancellor Kent thus describes the relation of the races : ' ' The
Africans are essentially a degraded caste of inferior rank and
condition in society. Marriages are forbidden between them
and the whites in some of the States, and, when not absolutely
contrary to law, they are revolting and regarded as an offense
against public decorum. By the Revised Statutes of Illinois,
published in 1829, marriages between whites and negroes or
mulattoes are declared void, and the persons so named are
liable to be whipped, fined, and imprisoned. By an old statute
of Massachusetts of 1705 such marriages were declared void,
and are so still. ' ' This summary was cited and corroborated by
the Chief Justice of Connecticut as late as 1834. f The Supreme
Court of Pennsylvania decided in 1837 that a negro or mulatto
was not entitled to exercise the right of suffrage. It was not
until July 4, 1827, that New York was ranked among the free
States, and when the Constitution of 1846 was adopted negro
suffrage was negatived by a vote of four to one. As late, cer-
tainly, as the date of the Dred Scott decision the Constitution of
New Jersey restricted the right of suffrage to all white persons.

SLAVERY IN THE SOUTH.

This course of legislation in the North illustrated the recog-
nized discrepancy of the races. Statute did not confer it, and
statute could not take it away. Slavery in the South rested
upon the natural supremacy of the white race over the black,

* Bancroft's History United States, Centennial edition, vol. VI, p. 304.
■fOrandall v. The State, 10 Conn. 346.

and the total and inevitable disqualification of the latter for an
equal struggle with the former. Labor in the South, unlike
Oriental bondage, Roman servitude, and feudal villanage, was
not the subjection of equals, differing in opportunity, but the
subjection of one extreme of humanity to the other, of the most
abject to the most enlightened. The real inequality of the races
had made subordination prescriptive. No higher encomium
could possibly be pronounced upon the practical beneficence
of Southern institutions than the one tacitly sanctioned by the
last amendment, viz : that they had been sufficient to educate
the lowest of earth's savages to take his place among the high-
est of earth's freemen. As population increases it becomes
cheaper to hire labor than to buy or own it; or, borrowing the
phrase of Carlyle, to hire for years rather than for life. The
labor of slavery ceases to be worth the capital involved in its
support. The coercion of authority is replaced by the coercion
of want, and the obligation to protect by the liberty to oppress.
Nothing could be truer or wiser than that which was said by
John Randolph in the Senate of the United States: ' ' The natu-
ral death of slavery is the unprofitableness of its most expensive
labor. * * * The moment the labor of the slave ceases to
be profitable to the master — or very soon after it has reached
that stage — if the slave will not run away from the master, the
master will run away from the slave ; and this is the history of
the passage from slavery to freedom of the villanage of Eng-
land."

The reasons of geography and worldly gain, which created
such divergence of destiny North and South, are given by Judge
McLean, in his dissenting opinion in the Dred Scott case :
' ' Many of the States, on the adoption of the Constitution, or
shortly afterwards, took measures to abolish slavery within their
respective jurisdictions, and it is a well-known fact that a belief
was cherished by the leading men, South as well as North, that
the institution of slavery would gradually decline until it would
become extinct. The increased value of slave labor, in the cul-
ture of cotton and sugar, prevented the realization of their ex-
pectations. Like all other communities and States, the South

was influenced by what they considered their own interests.'7
The peculiarity of the situation was, that while the people of
the South were acting "like all other communities and States,"
they were abused and accused as though none other had ever
been so wicked, and as though their abusers and accusers had
ever lived void of offense before God and man. The accusers,
who had so comfortably purged themselves of their own sins, suf-
fered such a very brief interval to elapse before arraying them-
selves in their white raiment for the excommunication of others,
who, it is true, had moved more slowly, but had so very much
more difficulty to overcome and expediency to resist. One
cannot but recall that which is narrated of Zachary Macaulay
(the father of Thomas Babington), who made a fortune in the
slave trade, and, when that was done, joined the anti-slavery
people, and secured some handsome appointments by attacking
the aforesaid business. It was well said, on the floor of the
Virginia Legislature, by John Thompson Brown, in an answer
to English invective : ' ' They sold us these slaves — they as-
sumed a vendor's responsibility — and it is not for them to ques-
tion the validity of our title. ' ' And it was equally relevant to
say to some others : ' ' Your position involves the right of a
grantor to revoke a grant, without the consent of the grantee
for value, and the right of one party to a compact to retain the
whole consideration moving to him while repudiating every
other."

MR. JEFFERSON'S SCHEME.

A scheme of gradual emancipation had been proposed by
Jefferson as early as 1776, and the general scheme of it ap-
proved by the convention which framed Virginia's Constitution
in that year, but no action was taken, because "the public
mind would not yet bear it." "Nothing," wrote Jefferson,
' • is more certainly written in the Book of Fate than that these
people are to be free; nor is it less certain that the two races,
equally free, cannot live in the same government. Nature,
habit, opinion, have drawn indelible lines of distinction be-
tween them." Here plainly was a difficult air for statesman -
2

ship to breathe, a problem which might well vex the noblest.
By what bond, other than the one existing, could darkest
Africa and free America, the antipodes in race as in geography,
dwell side by side in useful co-operation ? Whatever might be
written in the Book of Fate, when it was equally legible that
the two races equally free could not live in the same govern-
ment, what was the solution ? This, on a very different scale
from anything which ever existed in the North, was the problem
which confronted the South, springing from no choice or voice
of her own, but against her choice and against her voice. In
1830 there were movements in Tennessee, Kentucky, Mary-
land, and Virginia for the gradual emancipation of their slaves,
and the movement in Virginia had nearly succeeded. It was
the aggression of the abolitionists which arrested the move-
ment in all these States.*

GRADUAL EMANCIPATION.

Connecticut will serve to illustrate the simplicity of the prob-
lem encountered at the North. In 1784 a scheme of gradual
emancipation was enacted for the slaves — some 3,000 in num-
ber— then in the State.

It was not until 1848 that the emancipation of this small
number was completed. Down to 1848, by the law of the
State, slaves were chattels, which could be sold by legal pro-
cess, and which were assets in the hands of an executor. Grad-
ual as this emancipation was, the preamble to the act of 1784
declares that it was as soon as it could be done, ' ' consistent

*"The States of Virginia, Kentucky, and Tennessee were engaged in practical
movements for the gradual emancipation of their slaves. This movement continued
until it was arrested by the aggressions of the Abolitionists upon their voluntary
action. This action was prompted by economical, rather than moral reasons. The
Abolitionists, however, refused to accept an impending fact, and insisted upon con-
victing as criminals those who were so well disposed to bring about the very result
at which they themselves professed to aim. The consequences were such as might
have been reasonably expected. Promised emancipation refused to submit itself to
hateful abolition. Those three border States placed themselves at once upon the
Virginia and Kentucky resolutions of 1798, and, resenting as an insult the interfer-
ence of the Northern intruders, abandoned the scheme which a calm view of con-
siderations, tending to their own future welfare, had induced them to form." — Ori-
gin of the Late War. George Lunt, Boston, p. SU.

with the rights of individuals and public safety." What <{ in-
dividual right, ' ' what ' ' public safety ' ' was ever cared for by
the inimical commonwealths which banded with such zeal for
the reproof and edification of the South ? Having no longer
sins of their own to repent of, there was nothing left for them
to do but to repent day and night of the wickedness of the
South. There were, however, alleviations to this kind of re-
pentance which reduced its heroic dimensions. It was a vica-
rious transaction which eluded altogether the crown of thorns
for the angels of repentance, and plaited it exclusively for the
brows of them whose sins they ransomed. They repented
proudly. One might speculate as to what might have been the
effect upon their trivial task had Canada possessed the power
and disposition to play their part (with the unrestricted right
to do so, which resided no longer in the North); had every
wind from that further North borne the poisoned arrow of .a hate
which never slept. Is it the rule for men to be convinced by
execration and imprecation? It were a severe task upon
credulity to be expected to believe that the benevolence which
referred to slaveholders as "bloodhounds," and to their com-
munity as the "small-pox," seriously desired to convert the
sinners so approached. If missionaries thus approach the
heathen their rate of progress is accounted for. This was not
the frame of mind wherewith to convert opinion, but was the
frame of mind wherewith to persecute opinion.

ALMOST PLAINTIVE.

There is something almost plaintive in the reply of Henry
Clay to Mr. Mendenhall. It was as meek as an imperious
spirit knew how to be : " Without any knowledge of the rela-
tions in which I stand to my slaves, or their individual condi-
tion, you, Mr. Mendenhall, and your associates, who have been
active in getting up this petition, call upon me forthwith to
liberate the whole of them. Now, let me tell you, that some
half dozen of them, from age, decrepitude, or infirmity, are
wholly unable to gain a livelihood for themselves, and are a
heavy charge upon me. Do you think that I should conform

to the dictates of humanity by ridding myself of that charge,
and sending them forth into the world with the boon of liberty
to end a wretched existence in starvation ? * * *

"I own about fifty, who are probably worth $15,000. To
turn them loose upon society, without any means of subsistence
or support, would be an act of cruelty. Are you willing to
raise and secure the payment of $15,000 for their benefit if I
should be induced to free them ? The security of that sum
would materially lessen the obstacle in the way of their eman-
cipation. ' '

But, even when such security was provided by the slave-
holder, the way was far from smooth. One instance occurs to
me, with which was associated a revered relative of my own.
John Randolph — and I can never mention the name of this
transcendent flame of genius without recalling the incalculable
debt which Virginia owes to his singleness of heart and purity
of service — John Randolph, by a will executed in the presence
of Mark Alexander and Nathaniel Macon, had made Judge
William Leigh the residuary devisee and legatee of his valuable
estate, subject to certain specific legacies and provisions. The
most important of these provisions was that of the means to
enable the executor of the will to transport the slaves of the
estate (set free by a previous clause), and settle them in some
other State or territory. He appointed Judge Leigh his ex-
ecutor. The will was contested on the ground of the mental
unsoundness of the testator. Judge Leigh, well aware that the
emancipation of these slaves had been the undeviating purpose
of Randolph's life, relinquished his absorbing interest under
the will that he might become a witness in support of it, and
so, at least, accomplish the particular intent to which I have
referred. To this extent the will was, in effect, sustained, and
Judge Leigh was appointed commissioner to transport and
settle the negroes as provided therein. The State selected for
the settlement was Ohio, but when the commissioner landed
his first interview was with a mob, formed to resist and repel
the negro settlement. The clearest glimpse of the state of
feeling is derived from the newspapers of the time.

A NEWSPAPER ACCOUNT.

From the National Intelligencer, July 15, 1846 :
"The Cincinnati (Ohio) Chronicle of the 9th instant says
that the emancipated slaves of John Randolph, who recently
passed up the Miami canal to their settlement in Mercer coun-
ty, Ohio, met with a warm reception at Bremen. The citizens
of Mercer county turned out en masse *, and called a meeting,
or rather formed themselves into one immediately, and passed
resolutions to the effect that said slaves should leave in
twenty-four hours, which they did, in other boats than the one
which conveyed them there. They came back some twenty-
three miles, at which place they encamped, not knowing what
to do."

From the National Intelligencer, July 24, 1846 :
The Sidney (Ohio) Aurora of the 11th says : These negroes
(the Randolph negroes) remain on Colonel Johnson's farm, near
Piqua. That paper condemns in decided terms the conduct of
the citizens in Mercer in the late outbreak, and insists that
"they should have made their objections known before the
land was purchased, and not waited until they had drawn the
last cent they could expect out of the blacks — some $32,000 —
and then raised an armed force and refused to let them take
possession of their property as they have done. We look upon
the whole proceeding as outrageous in the extreme, and the
participators should be severely punished. What makes the
thing worse is the fact that a number of those, who were fiercest
in their oposition to the blacks and loudest in their threats to
shoot, etc. , were the very ones who sold them land, received
wages for constructing the buildings, and actually pocketed a
large amount of money for provisions, not two weeks before
the arrival of the poor creatures whom they have so unjustly
treated."

National Intelligencer, August 10, 1846 :
The Randolph Negroes. — The last Piqua (Ohio) Register
says : ' ' These unfortunate creatures have again been driven

from lands selected for them. As we noticed last week, an
effort, which it was thought would be successful, was made to
settle them in Shelby county, but like the previous attempt in
Mercer it has failed. They were driven away by threats of
violence. About one-third of them, we understand, remained
at Sidney, intending to scatter and find homes wherever they
can. The rest of them came down here to-day, and are now
at the wharf in boats. The present intention is to leave them
wherever places can be obtained for them. We presume, there-
fore, they will remain in the State, as it is probable they will
find situations for them between this and Cincinnati."

Natioyial Intellige?icer, August 15, 1846 :

John Randolph: 's Negroes. — ' ' It is said that these unfortunate
creatures have been again driven away by threats of violence
from the lands which had been secured for them in Ohio, and
that Judge Leigh, despairing of being able to colonize them in
a free State, has concluded to send them to Liberia." — Rich-
mond Republican.

A CONTRAST.

The negroes were finally allowed to occupy the land for
which they had paid ; but what a very invigorating sympathy
did these two emancipators excite in this free State ! Here was
one Virginian who had emancipated by will numerous slaves,
and here was another who relinquished a large estate to secure
the fulfillment of this part of the will. The response to them
from the North was mob violence and contumelious scorn.
What was a poor belated Virginian to do ? If his slaves went
North with his consent, . stones and curses were good enough
for them ; they were only welcome when they went without it.
In effect it was said : Your negroes are intolerable to us ; we
are not willing to accept the companionship of a very small
number, even on the terms of no cost to ourselves, and all their
expenses paid, but we will not cease to weary you with our
importunity to set free and provide for your millions, and to do
it, as Mr. Mendenhall said, "forthwith." Crusaders are not

unapt to be a trifle derelict in magnetism when their solicitude
is to convert every one except themselves.

That which the North demanded of the South, as their ex-
pository supplement has shown, involved the admission of the
improvised freedman to all those privileges which in the land
of the crusaders had been so curiously overlooked, including
that which at the North could not possibly exist — the power at
the polls to exchange the barbarism of Africa for the civilization
of the United States. Mr. Freeman, in his "Impressions of
the United States," with the judicial calm which tempers all
his writings,* has stated the problem as it was and is presented
to the South : ' ' There is, I allow, difficulty and danger in the
position of a class enjoying civil, but not political rights, placed
under the protection of the law, but having no share in making
the law or in choosing its makers. But surely there is still
greater difficulty and danger in the existence of a class of citi-
zens who, at the polling booth, are equal to other citizens, but
who are not their equals anywhere else. We are told that
education has done and is doing much for the once enslaved
race. But education cannot wipe out the eternal distinction
that has been drawn by the hand of nature. No teaching can
turn a black man into a white one. The question which in
days of controversy the North heard with such wrath from the
mouth of the South, ' Would you like your daughter to marry
a nigger? ' lies at the root of the matter. f Where the closest
of human connections is in any lawful form looked on as im-
possible, there is no real fellowship. The artificial tie of citi-
zenship is in such cases a mockery."

*" Professor Freeman's sympathies were strongly marked, but they never caused
him to swerve from truth, and they rarely caused him to swerve from justice."— New
York Nation, April U, 1892.

f For years the repetition of this question has been the standing gibe whereby the
missionaries of a higher culture have exposed the illogical and slightly barbarian
mental attitude of the South. But to this enlightened scholar the question seems
to have several signs of hereditary intelligence.

THE SEQUEL.

The sequel has shown that the Northern movement meant a
reconstruction of society which could only be made effective
by force. It carried in its wake the expulsion of a State legis-
lature from its proper hall by the bayonets of the United States.
It meant, the emancipators themselves being judge, that gov-
ernment of force which is indispensable when nature is super-
seded. It meant that which for eight years we had — a govern-
ment of the bayonet, by the bayonet, and for the bayonet.
One who has gained his title to popular applause by meriting
the title of ' ' Czar ' ' very lately renewed his adhesion to this
very peculiar type of popular government. " They said," he
exclaimed, ' ' we could not coerce a State. We coerced eleven.
I wish our Republicans had more courage, and we should
coerce them until liberty prevails all over this land." In one
sense, the speech is logical. It is the reasoning of the logicians
who, "false to freedom, sought to quell the free." Only by
force bills is the argument of the South refuted. And yet it is
a droll idea of liberty which seeks to instill its blessings at the
point of the sword. The distinction between freedom and
despotism grows so alarmingly indistinct. No better proof
could be given of the extent to which the movement, vainly
resisted by the South, has revolutionized free institutions than
that such compulsory freedom should have been the serious
thought and purposed order of the day.*

Nevertheless, in the same year in which Virginia emancipa-
tion was receiving such cold comfort in Ohio, on all other ques-
tions, financial, economic, and constructive, the mind of Thomas
Jefferson had become the governing mind of the country. The
principle of "justice to all, and special privileges to none,"
became in this year the unmistakable choice of the States and
of the people, and was dethroned only by the civil war. The

* " What is all the noise in the streets? " said a gentleman in the conscription times
in New York. " Oh, nothing, sir," said Pat. " They are only forcing a man to turn
volunteer." Such would be the comedy of the new logic if its serious adoption does
not turn it into tragedy.

tariff of this year had restored the revenue standard which,
four years earlier, had been displaced. . It was soon made mani-
fest that this tariff could only be criticised as being too high,
and that the welfare of the country called for still further re-
duction, which, in 1857, was enacted. Upon this, the impor-
tant financial issue of the time, Massachusetts was seen side by
side with Virginia — the State of the Adamses with the State of
Jefferson. The country was thriving, and the one problem was
to guide the natural flow of prosperity within natural bounds.
The type of government which bases its appeal for support
upon governmental aids to special interests, and alliance, if
not partnership, with them ; upon bounties to favored classes,
and the influence purchased by such favor ; had received a
complete, and, had it not been for the passions of the anti-
slavery agitation, there is every reason to believe, a final defeat.
From the time of the decisive overthrow of this class legislation
in 1846, and because of such overthrow, the country had pros-
pered.*

No party appeared in any force from 1846 to 1860 to dispute
the salutary tendency of this legislation. It was "a condition,
and not a theory," which was thus impregnable. The just re-
ward of the general industry did not stagger under burdens
imposed for the creation of excessive dividends to a few. On
every legitimate subject of debate the State rights administra-
tion of affairs had extorted the acquiescence, if not the welcome,
of traditional foes. Government was honestly administered,
and not honeycombed by the corruption which is to-day re-
ferred to as the necessity of politics. There was prosperity
without bounties ; trade without subsidies ; a character which
could stand alone and implore no staff for either infancy or old
age. The winds of onward movement filled every sail. The
gallant masts did not bend as the goodly timbers sped forward
with the goodly freight. The happy result was felt of leaving
industry free ; of protecting, one might say, not its infancy

* " Take the decade from 1870 to 1880, our increase in general prosperity under Re-
publican high tariff was about 20 per cent., while during the decade from 1850 to
1860, under the Democratic revenue tariff, our general prosperity increased nearly 100
per cent."— Speech of Hon. H. G. Davis, of West Virginia.

(and thereby prolonging it), but its freedom, divested of re-
straints and unforced by bounties.

THE FORBIDDEN FRUIT.

Alaska alone excepted (and in some sense this, too, was no
exception), all the additions to Federal territory have been
made under Southern administrations ; and now, as the result
of the war with Mexico, there was another, not inferior to
that of 1803, but which was, nevertheless, in the language of
the South's great statesman,* " the forbidden fruit." At the
time of the Missouri compromise, the prophetic mind of this
new world had read the result of that much-vaunted business
in the foundations on which it rested. The notes of alarm fell
upon his ears like a "fire bell in the night," and with a patriot's
fire he translated to his countrymen the significance of those
feet, "part of iron and part of clay." " The leaders of Fed-
eralism, defeated in their schemes of obtaining power by rally-
ing partisans to the principle of monarchism — a principle of per-
sonal, not of local division — have changed their tack and thrown
out another barrel to the whale. They are taking advantage
of the virtuous feeling of the people to effect a division of par-
ties by a geographical line ; they expect this will insure them
on local principles the majority they could never obtain on
principles on Federalism. * * * Are our slaves to be pre-
sented with freedom and a dagger?" This was what Jefferson
termed "treason against human hope." Never was truer sen-
tence written than one which has often been, but cannot be too
often quoted : "A geographical line, coinciding with a marked
principle, moral and political, once conceived and held up to
the angry passions of men, will never be obliterated, and every
new irritation will mark it deeper and deeper." But never
was the power of persistent misstatement so signally exhibited
as in the accepted belief that this compromise, reluctantly as-
sented to by the South as one in derogation of her rights, was
by the South broken and by the North kept. The opposition
to the compromise came invariably from the North whenever

* Calhoun.

the South was the beneficiary of it. It was the South which
proposed the extension of the line to the Pacific, and the North
which rejected it. The settlement of 1820 had been already
dishonored by denial, and by denial from the North, when, in
1850, it was ignored and annulled on both sides of the line.
This was the exceeding wickedness of the South — to think
that the name should correspond with the reality ; to think
that when the reality had ceased to exist, the utility of the
name was not excessive ; that when the practical operation of
the compromise had been repudiated by the North, with every
expression of scorn and contempt, the dead letter need cumber
the statute book no longer. And, after all, what was the prac-
tical effect of such a settlement as derived from actual experi-
ence. It had been witnessed in the case of New Mexico, the
most important of the territories, which had been organized for
more than ten years, which was open to slavery by the settle-
ment of 1850 ; whose climate was suitable, which adjoined
Texas. It had an area of 2,000,000 square miles, and at the
end of ten years there were upon its soil only twenty-two
slaves, and of these only ten were domiciled. Did it injure the
negro; did it augment slavery? If there was one man who,
more than any other, was the author of freedom in this West-
ern hemisphere, that man was Thomas Jefferson. He was not
seeking to augment or prolong slavery when he wrote to Mr.
Holmes, of Massachusetts, who agreed with him: "Of one
thing I am certain : that as the passage of slaves from one State
to another would not make a slave of a single human being
who would not be so without it, so their diffusion over a greater
surface would make them individually happier, and proportion-
ately facilitate the accomplishment of their emancipation by
dividing the burthen on a greater number of coadjutors. ' ' This
was the great iniquity which caused the whole Western reserve
of Ohio, in a single day, to turn from Whig to Republican.

A TEST QUESTION.

On January 11, 1838, the principle of the Kansas- Nebraska
act had been made a test question, by the final resolution of

the series, which on that day passed the Senate by a vote of
nearly four to one. On December 11, 1838, resolutions cover-
ing the same ground as to the territories were introduced into
the House and passed by large majorities. The question in-
volved in the Kansas-Nebraska act had been established, as far
as the nearly unanimous agreement of both houses could estab-
lish it, sixteen years earlier, without creating any excitement
whatever. It had received the imprimatur of the States and
of the people.

It was not the South which arrayed itself against the only
sovereignty known to this country — the sovereignty of law.
The constitutional position of the South received the sanction
of the only umpire known to the Constitution. The final sanc-
tion, known as the Dred Scott decision, was the inevitable
sequel to prior adjudications, and could have been no other
than it was ; and those prior adjudications, like the votes of the
two houses in 1838, had been too reasonable to awaken agita-
tion or serious comment. The adjudication was that the
territories, secured to the States by the common blood and
treasure (and it might have been added, more largely secured
by the blood and treasure of the South, if the donations to the
General Government be considered) ; that these territories
were secured equally to all the States, and not unequally to
any ; and that it was to deprive the citizen of his property,
without due process of law, to take his slave from him merely
because the latter was found in the common territory of the
United States. The adjudication was that the Federal Union
rested on the basis of federal equality.

At least the school of construction, which proclaimed the
judgment of this tribunal to be the ultimate reason, when it
was planted on the side of the Bank of the United States,
should have been estopped to denounce their own canonized
authority. Fourteen Northern States passed laws to practically
nullify the fugitive-slave law, but in doing so they not only
violated the compromise and the compact of the Constitution,
but the law as their own courts expounded it. The highest
courts of these States (including that of Massachusetts, speak-

ing through Chief-Justice Shaw), whenever the occasion arose
to pass upon this law, uniformly supported it. The lawless
legislation was not South, but North, as tried by the exclusive
jurisprudence of the latter. Never were people more com-
pletely covered by all the panoply of law — even the law of vin-
dictive commonwealths — than the people of the South.

It was in this state of the law of the land, as expounded by
the highest Federal tribunal, that a party arose which sought
no suffrage, offered no candidates, and excluded recognition
in all that portion of the country which is called the South. It
was a declaration of war against fifteen of the States of the
Union, and against the Federal compact upon which they
stood. It was an appeal to one portion of the country, and
that the most powerful portion, to know no rest until they had
destroyed the other. It had no other reason of existence than
to slit the North from the South by one clean cut, and then to
mass the former against the latter. It had one memorable pre-
decessor in the convention of Northern States (from which
every Southern State was excluded), which met at Harrisburg
in 1828 to frame the tariff known to history as "The Bill of
Abominations. ' ' The ' ' abominations ■ ' of that bill had been
driven from the field in demoralized rout and disorder. By
their own intrinsic force they could make no further stand.
Only on the back of this new agitation could they again rise
into power. The States which could no longer be banded
under the invocation of an imaginary interest were at last
permanently banded under the banner of a real enmity.*

This opinion may be reinforced by that of a cool, dispassion-
ate, free-soil Democrat — the ablest Northern statesman of his
time, and surpassed by none of any time. It was the opinion
of Samuel J. Tilden that, if the Republican party should be
successful, the Federal government in the Southern States
"would cease to be self-government, and would become a

* " The Republican party is a conspiracy, under the forms, but in violation of the
spirit of the Constitution of the United States, to exclude the citizens of the slave-
holding States from all share in the government of the country, and to compel them
to adapt their institutions to the opinions of the citizens of the free States." — Speech
of Judge William Duer, at Oswego, August 6, 1860.

government by one people over another distinct people — a
thing impossible with our race, except as a consequence of suc-
cessful war, and even then incompatible with our democratic
institutions."*

VICTOR AND VICTIM.

This was what the statesmen of the South foresaw and looked
courageously in the face. The success of the party ranged
against them meant the government of the South by the North
and for the North — the relation of victor and victim. Lincoln
was the representative of opinions and interests confined to one-
half of the country and pledged to an irrepressible conflict
with the other. The tariff which sprang from the first throes
of the convulsion gave audible warning that one of the spoils
which belonged to the victor was the taxing power of the Gov-
ernment, to be used to throw the substance of one-half of the
States into the lap of the other ; the supplies of the South to
be intercepted by the receipt of customs which would divert
the profits of her industry into the pockets of the North.
Nevertheless, when every right of property and every right of
government was at stake, Virginia took counsel, not of her
fears, but of her patriotic love for the Union which she had
done so much to enlarge ; which she had stripped herself of
the whole Northwest territory to create and to cement. She
had given, not principalities, but empires, to the General Gov-
ernment. What those who now condemned her had sacrificed
for the Union was far less legible. Her voice was raised for
peace. She pointed out that every practical issue which could
possibly arise on the slavery question had been settled by the
inexorable logic of events ; that Kansas had already prohibited
slaves, and, it might be added, negroes ; that no Territory
north of Kansas could possibly be expected to do otherwise ;
but, to allay apprehension, she reiterated the proffer of the
South to stipulate against admissions on any other terms. The
relation to this subject of the territory south of Kansas was
fixed by the compromise of 1850, and it was not the South

* Article of James C. Carter, in the Atlantic Monthly for October, 1892.

which desired to disturb it. Virginia said to the North, "the
only thing left open to possible agitation the South will stipu-
late in your favor. ' '

The North claimed all the Territories for their citizens and
their institutions. The South was content to ask no more than
the right of ingress into a part or one-half of the Territories
for her citizens and their property. The South said : ' ' You
blame us for effacing from the statute book the dead letter of
the Missouri compromise ; very well, then, we will restore that
letter in form which you have so invariably repudiated in fact.
Lawless as we deem it, for the sake of the Union we will seek
to make it lawful by consent ' ' ; and the offer was disdained.
The answer to the peace conference was the fleet of war dis-
patched to Charleston ; the proclamation of the 15th of April,
1861 ; the transfer of the construction of the Constitution from
the bench to the bayonet, the silence of the laws by the arms
of the United States. Not until the compact of the Constitu-
tion was shattered beyond the reach of surgery, by the sum-
mons of the North to armed war against the South, did Vir-
ginia declare that an order of things ' ' outside the Constitution ' '
was no compact for her. That union of the purse and sword,
which was the theme of such impassioned declamation at the
North, when the object was to divide the South against Andrew
Jackson, was welcomed with avidity, when the object was not
the protection of a bank, but only the overthrow of every com-
monwealth of the South. It was elsewhere than in Virginia
that the value of the Union had heretofore been computed. It
was with the secession of New England that Hamilton threat-
ened Jefferson, unless the debts of the States were assumed by
the General Government. The purchase and admission of
Louisiana were held to justify the secession of New England,
and for the very reason that the admission of any new State
into the Union altered the Federal compact to which the com-
monwealths of New England had acceded, by altering their
relative weight therein. The embargo, the Non- Intercourse
act, and the hostilities with Great Britain were deemed a justi-
fiable ground for a dissolution of the Union, and the ' ' Hartford

Nation," which assembled in congress to draw the necessary
papers, was only restrained by that glory of New Orleans,
which was a victory over New England quite as much as over
old England. The annexation of Texas was considered a
ground for separation of the States, and for reasons which
were once more based on the federative character of the Union
and the alteration of the relative importance of its members.
On the 1st of February, 1850, Mr. Hale offered in the Senate
a petition and resolutions, asking that body to devise, "with-
out delay, some plan for the immediate peaceful dissolution of
the American Union. ' ' And Chase and Seward voted for its
reception. It was New England who taught us the memorable
words, "amicably if we can, violently if we must."*

And what were the invasions which she could not stand with-
out the threat and preparation of disunion? The measures
which doubled the continent of free government, and gave the
Mississippi to us to be our inland sea and Mediterranean of
commerce. And Virginia ! When, for the first time, did she
recoil, with just and natural horror, from the fate which was
prepared for her ? Not until she had no other alternative than
to make good her right to free government out of the Union,
or to submit to * ' freedom and a dagger ' ' in it. Like the
desert bird who ' ' unlocks her own breast ' ' to satisfy her off-
spring, Virginia had partitioned and repartitioned her own ter-
ritory to feed the Union, and this was her reward ! That ene-

* " There is a great rule of human conduct which he who honestly observes cannot
err widely from the path of his sought duty. It is to be very scrupulous concerning
the principles you select as the test of your rights and obligations ; to be very faithful
in noticing the result of their application ; to be very fearless in tracing and expos-
ing their immediate effects and distant consequences. Under the sanction of this
rule of conduct, I am compelled to declare it as my deliberate opinion that if this
bill passes the bonds of this Union are virtually dissolved ; that the States which
compose it are free from their moral obligations, and that as it will be the right of
all, so it will be the duty of some to prepare definitely for a separation— amicably if
they can, violently if they must. * * * Have the three branches of this Govern-
ment a right at will to weaken and outweigh the influence respectively secured to
each State in this compact by introducing at pleasure new partners situate beyond
the old limits of the United States ? * * * The proportion of the political weight
of each sovereign State constituting this Union depends upon the numb er of States
which have a voice under the compact."— Speech of Josiah Quincy, January U, 1811,
on the bill for the admission of Louisiana.

mies and accusers, who had counted so critically the profit of
the Union ; who at every step of its progress had weighed so
nicely its commercial value ; who had shouted so loudly that,
unless it was a Union which was profitable, it was no Union for
them ; that they who had been preaching and practicing dis-
union ever since there had been a Union ; that they should
have been the executioners of the State which had served it
best and loved it most was the curious revenge of time.

VIRGINIA'S STAND.

Virginia then took her stand against the prostration of every
guaranty of the Federal compact and the complete overthrow
of the terms upon which alone she had acceded to it. That
she honestly thought this her enemies concede ; that she justly
thought, and, so far as the argument of reason is concerned,
incontrovertibly thought it, history will finally determine. The
South has not to plead like a culprit before the world. It was
the name and not the truth of freedom which was victorious
against us. I await with confidence the final verdict, because
of an abiding faith that every appearance is to reality as the
gourd to the oak.

Virginia stood for the liberation of trade ; for free association
with the world. Far better than all anti-slavery agitation was
this agency to unbind the fetters of mankind. She took her
stand against the blind egotism and narrow self-sufficiency which
would isolate each community from every other, and tear asun-
der all the bands of sympathy wherewith nature joins the popu-
lations of the earth ; wherewith and whereby nature fortifies
that mind of man which is never strong by its single strength.
I will not confine this idea by my own poor words, but give it
rather in the words of New England, speaking through the
lips of the purest champion of her cause — one might say its.
conscience ! ' ' Free trade ! ' ' exclaimed Dr. Channing, ' ' this is
the plain duty and plain interest of the human race. To level
all barriers to free exchange ; to cut up the system of restriction,
root and branch ; to open every port on earth to every pro-
3

duct — this is the office of enlightened humanity. To this a
free nation should especially pledge itself. Freedom of the
seas, freedom of harbors, and intercourse of nations free as the
winds; this is not a dream of philanthropists. We are tending
towards it, and let us hasten it. Under a wiser and more Chris-
tian civilization, we shall look back on our present restrictions
as we do on the swaddling bands by which in darker times the
human body was compressed. The growing freedom of trade
is another and glorious illustration of the tendency of our age
to universality." Virginia stood for the Federal Union; a
Union, as the name imports, which is created by treaty and
reposes on the terms of that treaty. An involuntary Federal
Union — a Federal Union extorted by Force — is a solecism.
Every government, it is said, should contain within itself the
means of its own preservation ; therefore, a Federal Union
should contain the means of preserving the only basis of fede-
ration— the rights of the component States. A Federal Union
which could readily be turned into a consolidation would be
provided with the means of its own destruction.* A Union,
by naming itself Federal, expresses its ligament to be, not
coercion, but convention. A Federal Union is the first
and noblest agency of that growing force of which, not uni-
versal subjection, but universal emancipation, is the dream.
The great transition of the latter centuries is the transi-
tion from the Feudal to the Federal age, and from force
to compact ; that is, from force to freedom, which is the
free dominion of the law — the coercion of ideas instead of the
coercion of arms. To convince is to conquer. The flower of
hope which springs eternally is the hope to change the law of
power into the power of law ; and in this strife of opposites the
first-born son of mediation is Federal Union — the Union of
choice and affinity in place of constraint; the Union of force in
place of the Union by force. As the tie is willing it is real ; as

* " A Union of the States, containing such an ingredient, seemed to provide for its
own destruction. The use of force against a State would look more like a declaration
of war than an infliction of punishment, and would probably be considered by the
party attacked as a dissolution of all previous compacts by which it might be bound.' '
Madison.

it is real it is strong. It is through federation, not through cen-
tralization, that the true synthesis of the peoples comes. If
the day ever comes ' ' when the war drum shall throb no longer' '
it will be ushered in, not by the empire, not by the imperial
consolidation, but by "the federation of the world." The
mighty import of this heaving and throbbing time is that by
its constitutions, rearrangements, and resources, by the grace
of its swift, light and ready movement, for man's coerced and
driven obedience, there may now be inaugurated his spontane-
ous energies in willing union. It was for the exalted idea of
self-governed freedom, which Virginia had been foremost to
proclaim, that she now took up arms and suffered martyrdom.

SLAVERY.

But if a hostile criticism urge, ■ ' Your own involuntary ser-
vitude at home was at war with all this fine preachment of will-
ing union," the answer is —

First. It was the condition with which you deliberately made
your bargain and received your redundant consideration, which
was, and is still, redundantly retained.

Second. The institution of slavery was fastened on us by
others, and very largely by those who seized it as a pretext for
war against us. It is not for them to revile us for not solving
in a day the tremendous problem which, on a scale so dimin-
utive, consumed more than half a century of their own time.
Slavery was the flail in their hand wherewith to beat down
freedom. It was constitutional government and the rights of
the State ; it was the reality of a Federal Union which they
sought "to put in course of ultimate extinction." They were
guilty of what Jefferson called "treason against human hope."
Slavery was our mode of dealing with a problem for whose
presence in our midst our accusers in old England and New
England were responsible.

Third. Had emancipation been the only thing desired, the
economic reasons which had been so successful at the North
would not have been wholly idle at the South. The forces
which put an end to slavery in Russia and Brazil were not

obliged to lose their cunning elsewhere — those irresistible forces
of the brain of commerce, out of whose ceaseless throb is nur-
tured the opinion which rules at last the world and all the
brave empire thereof. By the side of this Titan the abolitionist
was a puny arm, which could only misdirect the mightier one
and make it mischievous — " dashing with his oar to hasten the
cataract, waving with his fan to give speed to the winds."
Our accusers dealt with their own problem at their own con-
venience. What right had they to force us to do otherwise?*

Undoubtedly we were not prepared to exchange the freedom
of the white race for the slavery of the black. Undoubtedly
we were not prepared for an emancipation which meant the en-
thronement of the negro.

Fourth. Never was there a great trust so nobly fulfilled as that
incurred by the South for the institution of slavery, imposed upon
her from the same magnanimous source whence her crucifixion
for it also proceeded. If any labor in any land ever more con-
vincingly proclaimed that it was subject to a more enlightened

* " There exists a disposition to escape from our own proper duties to undertake the
duties of somebody or anybody else. There exists a disposition not to do as our good
old catechism teaches us to do— to fulfill our duty in that station to which it has
pleased God to call us. No, sir ; it is obsolete and worm-eaten. We must insist upon
going to take upon ourselves the situation and office of some one else, to which it
has not pleased God to call us— of the Hindoos and the Otaheitan ; of anybody or
anything but our own proper business and families."— Speech of John Randolph in
United States Senate.

It is not uninstructive to note how the same thought presented itself a quarter of a
century afterwards to another man of genius. "A foolish stump-orator, perorating
on his platform mere benevolences, seems a pleasant object to many persons ; a harm-
less or insignificant one to almost all. Look at him, however ; scan him till you
discern the nature of him ; he is not pleasant, but ugly and perilous. That beautiful
speech of his takes captive every long ear, and kindles into quasi-sacred enthusiasm
the minds of not a few ; but it is quite in the teeth of the everlasting facts of this
universe, and it will come only to mischief for every party concerned. Consider that
little spouting wretch. Within the paltry skin of him, it is too probable, he holds
few human virtues beyond those essential for digesting victual. Envious, cowardly,
vain, splenetic, hungry soul ; what heroism, in word, or thought, or action, will you
ever get from the like of him? He, in his necessity, has taken into the benevolent
line ; warms the cold vacuity of his inner man to some extent in a comfortable man-
ner, not by silently doing some virtue of his own, but by fiercely recommending
hearsay pseudo-virtues and respectable benevolences to other people. Do you call
that a good trade? Long-eared fellow-creatures, more or less resembling himself,
answer. ' Hear, hear ! Live, Fiddlestring, forever ! ' Wherefrom follow Abolition
Congresses, Odes to the gallows."— Thomas Carlyle (Model Prisons).

supremacy than force, I do not recall it. For four years of war
all force was withdrawn from the negro, but his affection, his
obedience, his fidelity did not withdraw. A beneficial subor-
dination and no other could have stood this test.

A STORY OF VALOR.

Of this cause the statue this day unveiled is emblematic, and
if I have left myself but little time to tell the story of valor, of
which it is also emblem, it is because that story is beyond the
reach of controversy. On the 9th of November, 1859, the
Howitzer Company was organized. It saw service for the first
time in the John Brown raid — the real beginning of the war.
It seemed to George Wythe Randolph, the first captain of this
glowing strength, that if his mighty ancestor could speak once
more from his lofty eminence he would shout : ' ' To arms ! ' '
For the practical interpretation of the Constitution and the
Federal Union which it organized had come to this : that a
peaceful village south of the Potomac might be invaded at
midnight for the purpose of midnight murder, and the invader
be made by legal execution not a murderer, but a martyr, so
that the bells of Northern churches tolled his requiem as he
expired, and in the words of one of his eulogists : "The gal-
lows was made as sacred as the cross." The John Brown raid
was the vivid revelation of a spirit which left no alternative be-
tween a battle for the compact of the Constitution or its uncon-
ditional surrender. The Richmond Howitzers did not organize
to surrender without a blow the heritage of their fathers; and
at the tap of the drum the company grew to a battalion. Like
Gonsalvo, when he pointed to Naples, they preferred to die,
one foot forward, than to secure long life by one foot of retreat.
We hear much of ' ' the land of the free and the home of the
brave, ' ' but the two are one. It is only a ' 'home of the brave' '
which can be a "land of the free." Only so long as men are
brave in the assertion of their rights are they free in the pos-
session of them. The rights which we have now we owe to
the fact that we once stood, not languidly, but with clear deter-
mination, for them — to the respect which is compelled by the

courage of conviction. It is the Howitzer chapter of this his-
tory that we celebrate to-day. Wonderful must it have been
to any soldier of the ' ' Old World ' ' to witness the daily pic-
ture in that Howitzer camp — officers and men seated around
the common camp-fire, as though the difference of rank were
nominal and temporal only, and the only real and eternal thing,
the cause which joined their hearts and hands. It was the
picture of what Jefferson called the Roman principle, which
esteems it honorable for the general of yesterday to act as a
corporal to-day. Every man was a brigadier around the
camp-fire, and every man was subject to a discipline of honor
more unsparing than the laws of war to every real dereliction.
And how absolutely did those officers command, just because
they never spared themselves ! To be first in rank was to be
first in danger, and side by side in every hardship.

It was on the extreme right at Fredericksburg, when Stuart
and Pelham, from the force of habit, were leading artillery in
what fairly seemed a cavalry charge, that the gallant Utz was
torn from his horse and from his life by the shell to which he
opposed his invincible breast. This day is his memorial ser-
vice. And how tenderly, when the pitiless rain had ceased,
we bent over the still form of Randolph Fairfax — the offering of
our grand old ally in every fight, the Rockbridge Artillery —
how tenderly we bent over that marble sleep, and gazed for
the last time on the fair, bright brow of the beautiful boy.
How we watched through all that winter while one — not of the
Howitzers, but in authority over us — was sinking, and the
very light of learning itself seemed to flicker in the socket as
the life of Lewis Coleman put on its spiritual body. It was in
the first clench of that long death grip which lasted from the
Wilderness to Appomattox that, as John Thompson Brown
rode to the front of his batteries to secure an advanced posi-
tion, a bullet from the brown brush which hid the enemy's
sharpshooters laid him in the dust. The beat of one of the
warmest hearts, making a man's breast like a woman's, there
ceased, and the bright outlook of a life all aflame with gener-
ous and manly hopes had fallen quenched. The sword pre-

sented to him by those Howitzers who, under his orders, had
fired the first, and over his memory did afterwards fire the last,
shot in the war, clung to him as he fell. He fell with a har-
ness of honor on him worthy his father's son. If I wanted a
picture of the intrepid calm which knows how to face unmoved
a crashing world, there could be found no truer face for it than
that of David Watson — a countenance which only seemed to
light up in the rage of battle, but which kindled with a lasting
brightness in the bloody angle at Spotsylvania Courthouse.
And if I sought, as a companion-piece, that bright, joyous valor
which meets danger, not as simple duty, but clasps her as a
bride, whose descent into danger is like the sea bird's toss
upon the waves, I would draw it from Ned McCarthy, down to
the hour when his bright day sank with the setting sun in the
fires of Cold Harbor. Peer of any whom I have named — firm
with the firmest, cool with the coolest, brave with the bravest,
patient, heroic, and magnanimous — was Henry Jones. He
fought his last battle when the army he served was fighting its
last. These were men worthy of renown in any field. Their
courage knew no danger. On the restless front of battle they
were stars. I count it my greatest pride to have been their
humblest follower.

THE LESSON OF COURAGE.

And of that following what shall I say? I will say that I
count it the best of all academies, the noblest university. No
craven graduates in the firm tuition of God's discipline. The
lesson of courage in daily jeopardy ; of patience under priva-
tion and strain ; the pursuit of high aims in disdain of earthly
menace or disaster, was taught to me, I trust not all in vain,
by the Howitzer battalion. The heart to scorn death, nay, the
heart to scorn self, the surrender of all for duty, was preached by
their detachments from Bethel to Appomattox, and from Manas-
sas to Manassas — and then at the last, the highest, the bravest
of all courage — the courage which shrinks not from defeat.
They were no warriors of the silk and satin kind who joined
their throat of thunder to the grand tones of that epic of wrath.

Seasoned veterans with the faces of boyhood stood behind the
ordnance, which had been drawn from Yorktown to the Chick-
ahominy ; which rang from Gettysburg to Petersburg. Never
once were the cannoneers driven from the guns which had been
captured for them from the enemy.* The strength of conflict
was in their sinews ; the strength of conviction in their hearts.
They moved in obedience to a principle which ruled the whole
heart and wielded the whole strength. They were made by
pressure and fire as the diamond is made. As they faced storm
after storm they added cubits to their stature. Far beyond all
material triumph in building the character of a people is the
struggle for that "baptism" which we name "the answer of a
good conscience." From this source only comes the fortitude
for that unshaken struggle with life's reverses which counts
for more than all the exploits of romance. None really, none
lastingly, conquer who trim their sails or their souls for every
breeze, and have no permanent chart. "All that pass from
this world," said John Foster, "must present themselves as
from battle, or be denied to mingle in the eternal joys and
triumphs of the conquerors."

I witnessed that wonderful sight, as tried by all the past —
four years of battles, which stand forth as scenes of a transfig-
uration ; wherein as the war strain grew more tense, the war-
rior grew more noble — battles, which were images of spiritual
growth and spiritual victory, wherein each in turn registered
one more ascendency of man's higher nature; wherein his
ignobility was trampled by his nobility under foot ; so that as
rank by rank mortality was thinned the ranks of the immortals
were recruited. For here soldiers presented themselves like
disciples, as a living sacrifice on the altar of all they revered.
On God's great altar their lives were laid. Their battles were
the litanies of heroes. Their valor was consecrated, not unto
fame, but unto duty. Their welcome to the foe, as day by
day he gained on them in numbers, but not renown, stands out
for me as the most illustrious portrait of man's spiritual wrestle ;

*After the first year of the war the original howitzers were exchanged for captured
Napoleons and Parrott guns.

wherein he greets a world in arms against him as his appointed
angel — the true arena to which his sponsors in baptism devoted
him. They steadily ascended on their ladder of pain. It was
like the struggle of a strong will in a weak body. As in An-
gelo's figure, the soul grew as the body wasted. When the
only way in which the victorious cause could commend itself to
the " consent of the governed" was to ''wear out by attri-
tion ' ' all who failed to perceive its beauty : when such a warfare

" Did like a pestilence maintain its hold
And wasted down by glorious death, that race
Of natural heroes " ;

our little band shared with their brothers the desolating tem-
pest, until it was their glory to stand with the seven thousand
of Appomattox. Obedient to their great captain to the last,
at his word, and only at his word, did they surrender. They
wept as they dismounted their guns. It was still the courage
which is loth to yield. When all was lost save honor, their
roll remained the roll of honor. The surrender of themselves
to their great captain and his cause had been their great sur-
render which swallowed up all other. Of such is the kingdom
which is victorious over defeat — the panoply which no defeat
can pierce. The great souls of sacrifice, wherein civilization
hath its root and whereof is its true branch, they truly have
their symbol in that bush burning in the desert, ever self-con-
suming and ever unconsumed. Rightly we make the su-
preme effort of that war our measure. For if our mind was
evil, the blows we struck would have betrayed its evil counsel ;
and as sheep know their shepherd, so do virtuous actions
troop around a virtuous cause. If the heart of the South
was the black and barbarous thing her enemies have painted,
a spear of fire should have discovered a shape so foul. That
heart has been tried in the fire; it has passed through the
fire. I would not be guilty, and believe I am not guilty, of
irreverence when I say, that, in the midst of the fiery ordeal
into which that heart was thrown, there was One walking by it
in the flames whose form was as the Son of God. To adhere

to success is easy. Constancy under an adverse star is the rare
and holy virtue. The standard of steadfast honor has been
borne aloft by men who knew there was for them no other re-
ward than the self-respect which only such fidelity can pur-
chase. The heroic temper of that heart, and the army it sup-
plied, in victory and defeat, is a parable of the constancy of the
human mind which does us more good to-day than all our
oppressions have done us harm.

THE STATUE.

Our embodiment of this story is the work before which we
will stand to-day with uncovered heads, and, I might add, with
uncovered hearts. From our own ranks sprang the genius
which has created it. Our own fellow-Howitzer is our artist.
The companion of our toils preserves them for us. He has
translated into temporal bronze the infinite meaning of our
struggle and sorrow ; the image of a soul which can arm itself
against the executioner of the body, as it were the free soul
in the captive body. The delicate and living lines, the lines
of solemn thought and silent sorrow, which unite and con-
verge upon the clear countenance of honor, outline a spirit over
which the great calm has come of one who has learned the
worst that fate can do. It is the truth which is wrought by
action into a unanimity of soul and body, making each a por-
trait of the other. There is our Howitzer, ' ' his soul well knit
and all his battles won." There he stands, waiting in silence.
The breastwork he surmounts he has made his own. He stands
upon the rampart which is only built in a people's heart. He
who stands there is victor. There he stands with mute appeal,
as if to say, ' ' The self I sacrifice is the lower and transitory
self to the higher and eternal. ' ' A- prayer in bronze suppli-
cates the heavens — that prayer of which it has been written,
qui precari novit, premi potest opprimi non potest. A figure of
faith stands upon the pedestal of war. To plant the hopes of
reason on the prophecies of the heart, as Leverrier planted him-
self on the calculations of his science, is faith. To follow the
heart's sense of rectitude through doubt and disaster; to stand

in the crash which drives virtue to despair ; to see the over-
throw of hope, and all its leaves of promise trampled like a rebel
in the dust, and still not to doubt, not to despair, not to rebel,
is faith. In the vast mysteriousness which throws its deep but
tender shadow across our way faith fears not. The very dark-
ness is a lamp. On the face of the deep is felt a foothold from
an unknown world, and the countenance is kindled by a sun
which is not seen. There is a ritual which the inarticulate
communion of all natural things repeats — the languages of leaf
and flower ; the sweet blossom of spring and the sweeter sor-
row of the falling year ; the patient returning of the stars ;
the looks of living and the tears of silent things ; the uproar
of city and of sea ; the gentleness around the clamor, seeming
anger of the universe ; the sweetness above its storms. We
dedicate to-day a statue of the soul and the soul's strength.
Kneeling souls requite it with their homage. It is our chapter
in the last book of the Iliad of chivalry. It is our hero, on
whose face is graved "the light of duty beautifully done."
As we draw aside the veil from the martial form and bared
brow of duty, let us also unveil the voice which says : " The
very light shall clothe thee, and the shadow of the passing cloud
shall be as a royal mantle. Thou shalt share in the azure of
heaven, and the youngest and whitest cloud of a summer's sky
shall nestle in thy bosom. Thou belongest half to us."

The ceremonies closed with the benediction by Bishop Ran-
dolph.

ADDITIONAL NOTE.

British subjects continued to hold slaves at the posts (retained by Great Britain) in
the Northwest Territory, unaffected by the ordinance of 1787, and successfully main-
tained their right to do so before the tribunals of the United States. ( Choteau v.
Pierre, 9 Mo. 3.)

Few realize how late was the final disappearance of white slavery in the British
Isles, notwithstanding the boasted regeneration and redemptive efficacy of the pre-
vailing atmosphere. The act for the manumission of Scotch colliers, passed origin-
ally in 1775, was not complete until a second enactment in 1799. When Hugh Mil-
ler, in 1824, left behind him the hill of Cromarty for the village of Niddry, he found
there a race of men who still bore about them what he terms " the soil and stain of
recent slavery" ; and eighteen years later— in 1842— there was a collier still living
whose father and grandfather had been slaves, and who had himself been born a
slave. (Schools and Schoolmasters, p. 305.)

It was not until the year 1779 that white slaves were enfranchised in France, by a
royal edict, which thus begins :

" We have been greatly affected by the consideration that a large number of our
subjects, still attached as slaves to the Glebe, are regarded as forming part of it, as it
were ; that, deprived of the liberty of their persons and of the rights of property, they
themselves are considered as the property of their lords," &c.

On February 26, 1830, it was said by Mr. Smith in the United States Senate : "Nor
will I go into the origin of slavery in this country. If I were to do so, I might, with-
out fear of contradiction, say that Plymouth, the place where the pilgrims landed,
was the second port at which African slaves were bought and sold on our shores."

The first statute establishing slavery in America is to be found in the Code of Fun-
damentals, or Body of Liberties, of the Massachusetts Colony in New England.
(Moore's History of Slavery in Massachusetts, p. 11.)

The origin of the fugitive-slave law provision in the Federal Constitution is to be
traced to the Articles of Confederation of the United Colonies of New England. ( Id.
27.)

" Manumissions were not allowed except upon security that the freed should not
become a burden to the parish." (Hildreth, Vol. II, 419.)

" When Penn, in 1699, had proposed to provide by law for the marriage, religious
instruction, and kind treatment of slaves, he met with no response from the Quaker
Legislature. In 1712, to a petition in favor of emancipating the negroes, the Assem-
bly replied that it was neither just nor convenient to set them at liberty. ( Id. 420.)
New England rum, manufactured at Newport, was profitably exchanged on the
coast of Africa for negroes, to be sold in the Southern Colonies, and vessels sailed on
the same business from Boston and New York." (Id. 427.)

The following extracts from newspapers illustrate the mode in which abolition
principles were applied in Massachusetts, while anything remained to be abolished :

From the Independent Chronicle, March 9, 1780: "To be sold, for want of employ-
ment, an exceedingly likely negro girl, aged sixteen."

From the Continental Journal, November 25, 1779 : " To be sold a likely negro girl,
for no fault but want of employment."

From the Continental Journal, October 26, 1780: "To be sold a likely negro boy

about thirteen years old, well calculated to wait on a gentleman." Inquire of the
Printer.

" To be sold a likely young cow and calf." Inquire of the Printer.

In the New York Gazette, for thirty years afterwards, similar advertisements may
be read.

At November term, 1816, this judgment was announced :

"The children of slaves in the late province derived no settlement from their pa-
rents." (AndoveT v. Canton, 13 Mass. 547.)

"At the time of his birth Caesar was a slave, and as such was the property of his
master, as much as his ox or his horse. He had no civil rights but that of protection
from cruelty." (Parker, C. J., Id. 550.)

" Slavery was introduced into this country soon after its first settlement, and was
tolerated until the ratification of the present Constitution. The slave was the prop-
erty of his master, subject to his orders and to reasonable correction for misbehavior ;
was transferable, like a chattel, by gift or sale, and was assets in the hands of
his executor or administrator." (Parsons, C. J., in Winchendon v. Hatfield, 4 Mass.
127.)

Doubtless it would have been something more than human — a trifle inhuman—
if those who had found the profit of parting with their slaves had failed to hold
up their hands in holy horror at the sight of those who were weak enough to pur-
chase them, or failed to point to the sordid contrasts of civilization thus procured.

Originally, under the Articles of Confederation, the value of the land and improve-
ments was made the rule for apportioning the public taxes ; but with a view to
diminishing the burden in the North and correspondingly augmenting it in the South,
the Northern and Eastern States insisted that taxes should be levied upon the prop-
erty in slaves. ' At their instance, and on their motion, as will appear by a reference
to the Journal of the Old Congress, the making lands the rule was changed, and
people, including the whites and three-fifths of other descriptions, was adopted."
(Charles Pinckney, in House of Representatives, February 14, 1820.) The taxation
and the representation were made commensurate in 1787. "The Eastern members
of the Convention proposed it ; they supported it, and they modelled it to their
mind. It was good and righteous whilst the Government was supported by direct
taxes. There were no complaints in the years 1798 and 1799, when it was necessary
to resort to a direct tax to support the war then waged against France. * * But
when direct taxes are no longer necessary, its great deformity presents itself. ' ' (Wil-
liam Smith, of South Carolina, in United States Senate, January 26, 1820.)

The Constitution of 1787 was the bond of union between twelve slave-holding States
and one non-slave-holding State, in a federative system of which the foundation-
stone was the equality of the States— the equal dignity and validity of the institu-
tions and rights of property prevailing in each. Certainly there was no implication
that, as in the case of Joseph's brethren, all the other sheaves would stand around
and make obeisance to the single one which was so upright.
The third article of the Louisiana treaty contained this stipulation :

" The inhabitants of the ceded territory shall be admitted into the Union of the
United States, and admitted as soon as possible, according to the principles of the
Federal Constitution, to the enjoyment of all the rights, advantages, and immunities
of citizens of the United States, and in the meantime they shall be maintained in the
free enjoyment of their liberty, property, and the religion they profess."

When the United States took possession of the province in 1804, it was (as stated by
Rufus King) estimated to contain 50,000 white inhabitants and 40,000 slaves. The
bill to carry into effect the convention of the 30th of April, 1803, between the United
States of America and the French Republic, was opposed in both houses of Congress,
avowedly on constitutional grounds. In the Senate it was urged by Mr. Tracy, of-

Connecticut : "A number of States, or independent sovereignties, entered into a vol-
untary association, or, to familiarize the subject, it may be called a partnership, and
the Constitution was agreed to as the measure of power delegated by them to the
Federal Government, reserving to themselves every other power not by them dele-
gated. * * The object of the original sovereignties, or partners to the compact, is
obvious from the Constitution itself ; they united as equals in power to promote the
political welfare of all. * * The words of the Constitution are completely satisfied
by a construction which shall include only the admission of domestic States, who
were all parties to the Revolutionary war and to the compact, and the spirit of the
association seems to embrace no other."

In the House it was urged by Mr. Thatcher, of Massachusetts : " The Confederacy
under which we now live is a partnership of States, and it is not competent to admit
a new partner but with the consent of all the partners."

" The Government of this country," said Griswold, of Connecticut, "is formed by
a union of States, and the people have declared that the Constitution was established
to form a more perfect union of the United States. * * It is easy to conceive that
it must have been considered very important by the original parties to the Constitu-
tion that the limits of the United States should not be extended."

To this in the House, it was answered by Mr. Nicholson, of Maryland : "In the
year 1776, when the United States absolved their allegiance to Great Britain, each
State became a separate and independent sovereignty. As independent sovereign-
ties, they had full power, in the language of the Declaration of Independence, ' to
levy war, conclude peace, contract alliances, establish commerce, and do all other
acts and things which independent States might of right do. ' Each State, separately
and for itself, had all the attributes of sovereignty, and no man can be hardy enough
to deny that, at that time, any of the respective States had the capacity to extend
its limits either by conquest or by purchase. * * All the rights which the States
originally enjoyed are either reserved to the States, or are vested in the General Gov-
ernment. If they once had the, power individually to acquire territory, and this
is now prohibited to them by the Constitution, it follows, of course, that the power
is vested in the United States." The same argument was made in the Senate by
John Taylor, of Virginia. The bill was passed in the House by a vote of 90 to 25, or
nearly 4 to 1 ; in the Senate, by a vote of 26 to 5, or more than 5 to 1— the only States
voting against it being Connecticut and Delaware, with Massachusetts divided. It
was, therefore, declared with virtual unanimity to be the law of the land, that the
right to the ownership of slaves, through the whole of this territory, extending from
the Gulf to the Lakes, was as firmly secured as the right to profess the Roman
Catholic religion.

In addition, the legislation of Congress directly tended to increase and extend
such ownership. The original act of March 26, 1804, for the government of the Ter-
ritory of Orleans, interdicted the introduction of slaves into the Territory, " except
by a citizen of the United States, removing into said Territory, for actual settlement,
and being at the time of such removal bona fide owner of such slave or slaves." But
the act of March 2, 1805, repealed this qualification of the right to import slaves.
(9th Congress, 1st Session, p. 472.)

" Our Eastern friends employed immediately a large portion of the shipping in that
trade. Carolina had no ships of consequence in that trade, but an ample supply
came from the North and East. * * This repeal, too, must have been effected by
the Eastern members. * * The Northern slave-traders and the British carried the
business on with a high hand. * * As soon as this trade was cut off by the act of
Congress of 1807, the sinfulness of it presented itself in glaring colors, both with our
Eastern friends and the British." (William Smith, in the United States Senate,
January 26, 1820.)

"Numbers in the Eastern States have been embarked, for some years past, In the
cruel traffic of slaves and smuggling tnem into other States." (David Bard, of Penn-
sylvania, in the House, February 14, 1804.)

" It may be received as a correct general idea on this subject that the citizens of
the navigating States bring negroes from Africa, and sell them to the inhabitants
of those States which are more distinguished for their plantations." (S. L. Mitchell,
of New York, in the House, February 14, 1804.)

A full list of the vessels which entered Charleston with cargoes of slaves for the
years 1804, 1805, 1806, and 1807, was submitted to the Senate on the 8th of December,
1820. There were fifty-nine vessels belonging to Rhode Island ; seventy British ;
consignees, natives of Rhode Island, eighty-eight ; consignees, natives of Britain,
ninety-one. Ten vessels belonged to James D' Wolf, who was elected Senator by
the Legislature of Rhode Island in 1820.

The bill to prohibit the further importation of slaves to the country was passed
in the House on February 13, 1807— yeas, 113 ; nays, 5. Of the nays three were from
the South, and two from New England— Silas Belton, of New Hampshire, and Mar-
tin Chittenden, of Vermont.

" But with all the sins of holding slaves, we have not that of going to Africa for
them. They have been brought to us by the citizens of the States which hold none.
The only time, in Congress, that I ever heard the slave trade defended, was by a
member from the same State with the gentleman from Rhode Island. * * A bill
was reported in the Senate to whip those who might be in any way engaged in it.
The whipping was struck out (not by the votes of those who represented slave States),
because a rich merchant might be convicted, and it would not do to whip a gentle-
man." (Nathaniel Macon, in Senate, January 20, 1820.)

Prior to this time, viz., on the 8th of February, 1803, the memorial of a Convention
of the State of Indiana, praying the suspension of the sixth article of the compact
of 1787, so as to admit slaves for a limited time into the Territory, had been com-
municated to Congress by William Henry Harrison. John Randolph, from the
committee to whom the question was referred, reported on March 2, 1803, that it
was inexpedient to suspend the same ; that the labor of slaves was not necessary to
promote the growth of that region; "that this labor, demonstrably the dearest of
any, can only be employed to advantage in the cultivation of products more valu-
able than any known to that quarter of the United States." Such was the longing
of the so-called " slave power " to commit aggression. In 1805 and 1806, the applica-
tion was renewed by the Territorial authorities.

On January 20, 1807, the Speaker laid before the House a letter from William
Henry Harrison, Governor of Indiana Territory, enclosing the unanimous resolu-
tions of the Legislature, of which the third was, " That the suspension of the said
article would be equally advantageous to the Territory, to the States from whence
the negroes would be brought, and to the negroes themselves." On the 12th of
February, 1807, Mr. Parke, of Indiana, reported that it was expedient to suspend
the said article for a period of ten years. The record shows no opposition nor any
final action.

Whatever may have been finally the case in Indiana— and there are some signs
that under laws for the regulation of Negroes a system of servitude existed— it is a
fact of which very slender notice has been taken, that so much of the Northwest
Territory as was included in the State of Illinois was admitted into the Union under
a constitution which sanctioned slavery. "The act of accepting the Constitution of
this State and admitting it into the Union by Congress, abrogated so much of the
ordinance of 1787 as is repugnant to that Constitution." (Phoebe v. Jay, 1 Breese, 268.)
As late as December term, 1828, the Supreme Court of Illinois decided, that negroes
and mulattoes who were registered servants might be sold as slaves. "No doubt

can exist that the Legislature acted upon the supposition that registered servants
were regarded as property which might be seized and sold. And no good reason is
perceived why these servants should be liable to attachments, and not be liable to
sale on executions obtained by the ordinary prosecution of a suit." {Nance v. How-
ard, 1 Breese, 245.) The Illinois court cites approvingly the language of Kent : " If it
is otherwise, the debtor is possessed of a false token, and the creditor is deceived."
{Id. 246.) Illinois was so admitted on November 23, 1818. Mr. Tallmadge, of New
York, opposed the admission on the ground that three several sections of the Consti-
tution "embraced a complete recognition of existing slavery, if not provisions for
its future introduction and toleration." Mr. Harrison, of Ohio, said in reply : " In
regard to the supposed compact, however, and its efficacy, he had always considered
it a dead letter."

Illinois was admitted by— yeas, 117 ; nays, 34. No agitation was created by this
admission of a distinctly Northern State. But the Union was shaken from centre to
circumference by the agitation to compass the exclusion of Missouri the very next
year. In respect to Illinois, there was an existing compact (whether the same was-
competently or incompetently enacted) that slavery should be excluded therefrom.
In respect to Missouri, there was the obligation of contract to secure the existing
slave property therein. But the law was ignored to admit Illinois, and the treaty of
cession was sought to be repudiated to exclude Missouri.

In 1830, Benton said : "The State of Missouri was kept out of the Union one whole
year, for the clause which prohibited the future entry and settlement of free people
of color. And what have we seen since? The actual expulsion of a great body of
free colored people from the State of Ohio, and not one -word of objection, not one
note of grief. * * The papers state the compulsory expatriation from Cincinnati
at two thousand souls ; the whole number that may be compelled to expatriate from
the State of Ohio at ten thousand. This is a remarkable event, paralleled only by
the expulsion of the Moors from Spain and the Huguenots from France. * * The
Senator from Massachusetts (Mr. W.), so copious and encomiastic upon the subject
of Ohio, so full and affecting upon the topic of freedom, and the rights of freemen
in that State, was incomprehensibly silent and fastidiously mute upon the question
of this wonderful expatriation— an expatriation which sent a generation of free
people from a republican State to a monarchical province."

In the same debate Felix Grundy said : "I have in my hand the memorial of two
thousand free people of color, resident in Ohio, praying this Congress to provide
them funds to enable them to remove to Canada, because they cannot remain in the
State of Ohio, on account of the severity of the laws imposed upon them. * * The
State of Indiana has forwarded its memorial asking Congress for aid to remove the
free people of color, now in that State, to Liberia."

The writer who approved the action of the Massachusetts Senate in refusing a vote
of thanks to Lawrence for the capture of the " Peacock," who approved the action
of the Governor and Council in withholding their presence from the funeral of the
hero, whose last words were, "Don't give up the ship," as he fell upon his deck,
was clearly no partisan of Jefferson ; but by him Jefferson's view of the Missouri
agitation is confirmed.

" Jealousy of Southern domination had, as we have seen, made the Northern Fed-
eralists dissatisfied with the purchase of Louisiana. * * The keeping out of new
States, and the alteration of the Constitution as to the basis of representation, * *
were projects too hopeless, as well as too unpopular in their origin, to be renewed.
The extension to the new territory west of the Mississippi, of the ordinance of 1787
against slavery, seemed to present a much more feasible method of accomplishing
substantially the same object. This idea, spreading with rapidity, still further
obliterated old party lines, tending to produce at the North a political union, for

which the Federalists had so often sighed. * * Otis, of Massachusetts, who at the
last session, as well as on several occasions before, had exhibited his strong sympa-
thy for the slave-holders, of which, indeed, he lived to give still further proofs, now,
on behalf of a Northern ascendency, and with the prospect of a new political party
on that basis, exerted all his eloquence against them." (Hildreth, Vol. VI, p. 683.)

It is worth Avhile to note some of the arguments employed. Thus, in the House,
by the advocates of the restriction, it was said : " No attribute of sovereignty is more
important than that which is exercised in the admission of new parties to the
Federal compact. It was reserved for America to exhibit on an extensive scale an
example of independent States uniting for the general welfare." (Mr. Taylor, of
New York, January 27, 1820.)

"The Constitution," said Mr. Gross, of New York, February 11, 1820, "maybe
regarded as a compact between the original States."

" The admission of a new State into the Union is no act of legislation, but a com-
pact merely. The parties are : Congress, in behalf of the United States, on the one
hand, and the new State on the other. * * The Federal Constitution itself was
merely a compact between the thirteen original members of the Union." (Mr. Ful-
ler, of Massachusetts, February 24, 1820.)

"I ask, whose welfare is here contemplated? To this only one answer can be
given : The welfare of those who framed and adopted this instrument— the welfare
of the parties to the Confederation. * * And who or what is Missouri ? She is, as
to us on the present occasion, an independent power. We, at her request, meet her,
and treat with her, as such." (Mr. Edwards, of Connecticut, February 21, 1820.)

On the other side it was said : " I much fear, notwithstanding all your solemn
asseverations, a scrutinizing public will assign other views, other notions ; and what
more probable than that unhallowed one of political ascendency ? And it is to be
feared that a lurking ambition, the bane of all governments, has had too great an
influence in this debate. * * In persisting in our restriction on Missouri, are we
dealing to our brethren of the South the same measures we would be willing they
should make to us ? When with magnanimity unparalleled they have conceded to
us nine-tenths of this great common property, can we wish to deprive them of the
remainder? * * In that great political strife which so long agitated the councils
of the nation, and at times threatened to tear asunder the social compact, have our
friends of the South ever deceived us ? * * In drawing the cordon of restriction
around the present slave-holding States, are we not violating their rights, increasing
their apprehensions, and weakening their moral force? This is not Christian
charity ; it will not ameliorate the condition of the slave." (Mr. Kinsey, of New
Jersey, March 2, 1820.)

" Is it not probable that there are some jugglers behind the screen who are play-
ing a deeper game— who are combining to rally under this standard, as the last re-
sort, the forlorn hope of an expiring party ? * * At the Revolution the rights of
the crown vested in the States. * * The doctrine that the Revolution is not the
origin but the perfection of the State governments, and that the States are the suc-
cessors as well of the crown as the colonies, has been so long and so well established,
that it is considered the foundation not only of political power but of private right.
* * Confine the slaves in the old slave-holding States where they are the most,
numerous ; the constant emigration of the whites will soon bring them to an.
equality with their slaves. Emigration will increase with the danger ; and murder
and massacre will succeed. And yet we can look on and see this storm gathering ;
hear its thunders, and witness its lightnings with great composure, with wonderful
philosophy ! We are aware, gentlemen, that we are diffusing sentiments which en-
danger your safety, happiness, and lives ; nay more, the safety, happiness, and lives,
of those whom you value more than your own. But it is a constitutional question..

Keep cool. We are conscious that we are inculcating doctrines that will result in
spilling the best of your blood ; but as this blood will be spilt in the cause of human-
ity, keep cool. We have no doubt that the promulgation of these principles will be
the means of cutting your throats ; but as it will be done in the most unexception-
able manner possible, by your slaves, who will no doubt perform the task in great
style and dexterity, and with much delicacy and humanity, too, therefore keep
cool. * * I trust I have succeeded in proving that Congress cannot restrict a State
which was party to the compact. * * It now becomes necessary to show that a
new State, on admission into the Union, succeeds to all the disabilities and duties,
and all the rights and powers, of one which was party to the compact. * * Abso-
lute power of Congress, and from Boston, too? Most of these gentlemen have
changed their tone since 1812, 1813, and 1814. Then their jealousy of Congress was
such that they would not allow them to determine when the country was in danger
of invasion, but confined this power to the exclusive discretion of their governor.

* * Ambitious, desperate men may take advantage of popular excitement, and,
after all other schemes have failed them, succeed by producing, the worst of all, a
geographical division of party, and rise to power under its banners." (Mr. Holmes,
of Massachusetts, January 27, 1820.)

At this date the two great jurists in the United States Congress were John Sergeant
and William Pinkney— Sergeant in the House and Pinkneyin the Senate. They
differed in their conclusions, but derived their arguments from the common prem-
ises that the Constitution was a compact. "The admission of the State," said Ser-
geant, " is itself a compact, as the Constitution of the United States was a compact
between the existing States. * * The Constitution of the United States, though in
form the work of the people (who made it their own by adoption), was a compact
between States. It was made by delegates chosen by the States. The votes in the
Convention were given by the States. It was submitted to the States for their ratifi-
cation ; and its existence depended upon the sanction of a certain number of the
States. These States were sovereign. * * Before the confederation the thirteen
States who composed it were in all respects sovereign and independent States, pos-
sessing all the attributes of sovereignty. The confederation was of sovereign and
independent States. * * The Constitution was thus the creature of the States— the
work of their own hands. But what is a new State? It is the creature of the Con-
stitution, deriving from the Constitution its existence and all its rights."

" What, then," said Pinkney, " is the professed result? To admit a State into this
Union. What is this Union ? A confederation of States equal in sovereignty— capable
of everything which the Constitution does not forbid or authorize Congress to forbid.
It is an equal union between parties equally sovereign. They were sovereign inde-
pendently of the Union. * * By acceding to it the new State is placed on the same
footing with the original States. It accedes for the same purpose— i. e., protection
for their unsurrendered sovereignty. If it comes in shorn of its beams— crippled and
disparaged beyond the original States— it is not into the original Union that it comes.
For it is a different sort of union. The first was union inter pares. This is a union
between disparates. * * It is into ' this Union '— i. e., the Union of the Federal
Constitution, that you are to admit or refuse to admit. You can admit into no other.

* * You can prescribe no terms which will make the compact of union between it
and the original States essentially different from that compact among the original
States."

Other speeches followed in the Senate, but opposition there was virtually silenced
by the invincible genius of this incomparable man. Like John Randolph and
Thomas Jefferson, Pinkney himself was an emancipationist within the borders of
his own State, and as such was cited as an authority by the Abolitionists of 1850.
But the difference between him and them was that Pinkney esteemed abolition

dearly purchased by the subversion of the Federal compact he had sworn to support,
and would not lend his aid to measures which required him to lay perjury to his
soul. As Fisher Ames said in respect to the diminution of another Federal feature :
"A consolidation of the States would ensue, which it is conceded would subvert the
new Constitution."

The language cited from the Louisiana and Missouri debates was the wonted speech
of the framers of the Constitution — of those who composed what Hamilton terms,
in the concluding number of the Federalist, "the compacts which are to em-
brace thirteen distinct States in a common bond of amity and union. ' ' In the origin of
the Federal Government there was no room for doubt as to the nature of the assent
whereby it was organized. There was little doubt about the historical fact, when,
on the 10th of December, 1802, Gouverneur Morris wrote "that the Constitution was
a compact, not between solitary individuals, but between political societies — the
people — not of America, but of the United States, each enjoying sovereign power,
and, of course, equal rights." Nor when he said in the Senate : " Let this compact
be destroyed, and each State becomes instantaneously vested with absolute author-
ity." Nor when he further said : " For I knew that if America should be brought
under one consolidated government, it could not continue to be a republic." This
was familiar history when, on December 8, 1803, Mr. Griswold, of Connecticut, said
in the House : " Our Government is in fact a confederacy, and as such we are bound
to respect the rights of each party to the compact."

Nor was such mode of speech at all unusual in the decade succeeding the Missouri
bill. It was but natural for Rufus King, on the 18th of March, 1824, to refer to " the
established provisions of the compact by which, under the guarantee of all to each,
the States expected to remain separate, coequal, and sovereign republics." On the 9th
of March, 1826, Edward Everett spoke of the limitation of the amending power grow-
ing out of the nature of the Constitution as a compact, and deprecated the day " when
the parties to this compact shall feel that it has wholly failed of attaining its essen-
tial objects." "The Constitution of the United States," he wrote to Jefferson, " is a
compact of independent nations." Mr. Pearce, of Rhode Island, on the 14th of
March, 1826, quoted and adopted the language of Governor Griswold, of Connecticut :
" The Constitution of the United States is a compact formed by the several States, to
and for the general good." And on the 28th of the same month Mr. Whipple, of New
Hampshire : " The States of the Federal Union ought not to be asked, and certainly
cannot be expected to submit, to a change of the Federal compact. * * When we
talk of the people, in relation to the Constitution of the United States, we intend only
the people of the individual States, and not the integral population of the whole
country under its federative form." " The parties to this compact," said Mr. Storrs,
of New York, February 17, 1826, " came together in the character of separate, inde-
pendent sovereignties. They were distinct sovereign communities of people. * * The
Constitution throughout speaks of the parties to the compact in the character of such
distinct State communities. It was to be ratified by the conventions of the States."
The House of Representatives is composed of members chosen by " the people " of the
' • several States. ' ' Representation and direct taxes were to be apportioned among the
people of the several "States." Each "State" shall have at least one Representa-
tive. The Senate shall be composed of two Senators from " each State," chosen by
the Legislature thereof." " Let us," said Christopher Gore, in 1814, " examine this
question by the Constitution. * * All the powers and authorities communicated
to this Government are contained, defined, and limited to this compact." " With a
Constitution made merely for defence," said Josiah Quincy, in 1813, " it is impossible
that an association of independent sovereignties, standing in such relations to each
other, should not have the principles of its union and the hopes of its Constitution
materially affected by the collection of a large military force, &c." ' There is not a

feature of our Government," said Griswold, in 1803, "more strongly marked than
this of its confederation, nor any to which the people are more strongly attached.
* * The States always have, and probably will continue to preserve with jealousy
their sovereignty and independence. * * The federative principle remains the
great and leading feature of the Constitution."

In 1820, the General Assembly of Ohio resolved that they "recognize and approve
the doctrines asserted by the Legislatures of Kentucky and Virginia, in the resolu-
tions of November and December, 1798, and January, 1800, and do consider that
their principles have been recognized and adopted by a majority of the American
people."

Calhoun, therefore, simply uttered, as was his habit, impregnable truth, when, on
the 22d of January, 1833, he laid down his resolution: "That the people of the
several States composing these United States are united as parties to a constitutional
compact, to which the people of each State acceded as a separate sovereign com-
munity, each binding itself by its own particular ratification ; and that the union,
of which the said compact is the bond, is a union between the States ratifying the
same."

In reply, Mr. Webster was forced to inaugurate a revolt against the truth of his-
tory, and pre-eminently of history as written by New England, in denying that the
Constitution was a compact between the people of the several States, or that any
State had acceded to it. He clearly saw that Calhoun's conclusion followed inex-
orably from his premises. "If," said Webster, "in adopting the Constitution, noth-
ing was done but acceding to a compact, nothing would seem necessary, in order to
break it up, but to secede from it." The language of Washington and Marshall,
referring to the adoption of the Constitution by North Carolina, as the accession of
North Carolina, was explained by saying, that as North Carolina did not adopt the
Constitution until after the government went into operation, "there was propriety,
therefore, perhaps, in calling her adoption of the Constitution an accession." The
logic of this would be that North Carolina, and all other States since admitted, did
accede, and, therefore, may secede— have by posteriority rights which those prior
in time do not possess. But the same language was applied to the original parties
to the Constitution. On June 9, 1788, Franklin wrote : "An eighth State has since
acceded, and when a ninth is added the Constitution will be carried into execu-
tion."

On December 7, 1787, Washington wrote to Madison : "If these (Pennsylvania,
Delaware, Georgia, North and South Carolina), with the States eastward and north-
ward of us, should accede to the Federal Government." And on the 10th of Jan-
uary, 1788, he wrote again to Madison : "Of all the arguments that may be used at
the Convention which is to be held, the most prevailing one, I expect, will be that
nine States, at least, will have acceded to it." "God grant," wrote Hamilton to
Madison, "that Virginia may accede." Jefferson wrote to Rutiedge: "I congrat-
ulate you on the accession of your State to the new Federal Constitution " ; and in
his communication of May 23, 1792, to Washington, he refers to " the limitations im-
posed by the Constitution on the general legislature, limitations on the faith of
which the States acceded to that instrument." -" Every independent community,"
said Otis (of Massachusetts), in 1820, " is a State. * * Now, the condition of the
United States and its territory at the time of forming the Constitution was this ;
some of the existing States might not at first accede to it."

It must be conceived that the architects, the advisers, the sponsors in baptism of
the Constitution, were able to render an account of the business and the terms upon
which it was promulgated and accepted. The result of the war, it is said, has
finally adjudicated that Webster was right. But it is obvious that such an adjudi-
cation must proceed upon the ground that the contemporaneous actors in this history

strangely misconceived the nature of the acts of which they were themselves such
representative agents.

The memorial to Congress "from the Legislature of the free and independent
Commonwealth of Massachusetts," read by Mr. Pickering in the House, June 29,
1813, plants itself upon the historical fact that the Constitution is a compact to which
the States are parties. On January 19, 1814, Mr. Wright, of Maryland, said : " The
honorable gentleman from New Hampshire (Mr. Webster) has told us that the Con-
stitution is a compact."

In the memorial to Congress prepared by Webster, in 1819, he had said: "The
Constitution provides that ' new States may be admitted into the Union.' The only
parties to the Constitution contemplated by it originally were the thirteen Confed-
erated States." * * *

Nor could Mr. Webster afterwards emancipate himself from the native tongue of
freedom. The North finds itself, he said in 1850, " where it did not expect to find
itself when they agreed to the compact of the Constitution." In keeping with this
was his speech at Capon Springs, in 1851, that the South, in the case put, " would no
longer be bound to keep the compact. A bargain broken on one side is broken on
all sides."

The resolutions of the Massachusetts Legislature in 1844, as to the annexation
of Texas, begin :

"Resolved, That the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, faithful to the compact
between the people of the United States, according to the plain meaning and intent
in which it was understood and acceded to by them, is sincerely anxious for its pres-
ervation ; but that it is determined, as it doubts not the other States are, to submit
to undelegated powers in no body of men on earth." Six years later the ground of
objection to this annexation was re-stated by Washington Hunt in accepting his
nomination by the Whigs for Governor of New York (October 11,1850) : "We re-
garded these measures as incompatible with our just rights under the federal com-
pact."

The vote was, in substance and effect, taken on Calhoun's resolution, for the first
time, in the first of the series submitted to the Senate, in January, 1838. Eighteen
States voted for it and six against it.

It is not surprising, therefore, that the latest biographer of Webster has felt con-
strained to admit that his premises were unsound.

" It was probably necessary — at all events, Mr. Webster felt it to be so — to argue
that the Constitution at the outset was not a compact between the States, but a
national instrument. * * Unfortunately the facts were against him. * * When
the Constitution was adopted by the votes of States at Philadelphia, and accepted
by the votes of States in popular conventions, it is safe to say that there was not a
man in the country, from Washington and Hamilton on the one side, to George
Clinton and George Mason on the other, who regarded the new system as anything
but an experiment entered upon by States, and from which each and every State
had a right peaceably to withdraw— a right which was very likely to be exercised.
(Lodge, p. 166.)

The trouble has been that in 1861 the South retained the views of the Constitution
shared by Washington and Hamilton, George Clinton and George Mason. This, and
this only, was the Constitution her sons had sworn to support ; this, and this only,
was the Constitution to which the States of the Union had acceded ; this, and not
some other constitution, not made by the Convention of 1787, nor any other conven-
tion—not ratified by any Commonwealth — some vague, independent constitution
made by what is mysteriously termed "the change of times and popular concep-
tion." The trouble has been that the whole war waged by Northern members
against the South was like the reconstruction enacted by them afterwards — " outside
the Constitution" they had sworn to support.

ii.

Cotemporaneous exposition proving so very unsatisfactory and defective, a school
or, as it were, convention of historians is composed to form a more perfect history,
with the undesirable parts left out. From this expurgated and reconstructed his-
tory it appears that "the States have their status in the Union, and they have no
other legal status " ; that " the Union is older than the States, and, in fact, it created
them as States." (Message, July 4, 1861.) Nothing short of an Ecumenical Council
could make this theory the solution of the condition with which history confronts
us. The treaty with France, signed the 6th of February, 1778, begins: "The most
Christian King and the United States of North America, to-wit : New Hampshire,"
&c. (naming the thirteen States), "having this day concluded," &c. " The essential
and direct end of the present defensive alliance is to maintain effectually the liberty,
sovereignty, and independence, absolute and unlimited, of the said United States."
The treaty with Great Britain, concluded at Paris September 3, 1783, is: "His
Britannic Majesty acknowledges the said United States, viz. : New Hampshire," &c.
(naming each State), " to be free and independent States; that he treats with them as
such." Can it be that the parties to these treaties knew not who were contracting,
nor what was meant by the Declaration of the Conquering Thirteen that they were,
" and of a right ought to be free and independent Stales" (not a free and independent
State) ? If such a question needed judicial determination, nothing could be more
clearly and competently adjudicated than this was by the Supreme Court in Wash-
ington's administration.

"It has been conceded," said Marshall for the defendant in error, "that inde-
pendent nations have, in general, the right of confiscation ; and that "Virginia, at
the time of passing her law (October 20, 1777) was an independent nation."

By the Court (Chace, J.) : "I am of opinion that the exclusive right of confisca-
ting during the war all and every species of British property, within the territorial
limits of Virginia, resided only in the Legislature of that Commonwealth, * *
as the people of that country were the genuine source and fountain of all power
that could be rightfully exercised within its limits. * * In June, 1776, the Con-
vention of Virginia formally declared that Virginia was a free, sovereign, and inde-
pendent State ; and on the 4th of July, 1776, following, the United States, in Con-
gress assembled, declared the Thirteen United Colonies free and independent States,
and that as such, &c. I consider this as a declaration, not that the United Colonies
jointly, in a collective capacity, were independent States, &c, but that each of them
was a sovereign and independent State ; that is, that each of them had a right to
govern itself by its own authority and its own laws, without any control from any
other power on earth." ( Ware v. Hylton, 3 Dallas, 210, 222, 224— February term, 1796.)

The great Chief Justice, who did so much to fortify every Federal power, was
incapable of such historical perversion as the "higher criticism" calls for. "As
preliminary to the very able discussion of the Constitution which we have heard
from the bar, and as having some influence on its construction, reference has been
made to the situation of these States anterior to its formation. It has been said that
they were sovereign, were completely independent, and were connected with each
other only by a league. This is true." (Marshall, C. J., in Gibbons v. Ogden, 9
Wheaton, p. 187.)

How utterly unknown this advanced doctrine was to the same great jurist when,
as a historian, he wrote, referring to the period between 1783 and 1787, "The Ameri-
can trade remained subject to the legislation of thirteen distinct sovereignties"
(Vol. V, p. 71) ; or when he wrote, " The war having been conducted by nations in
many respects independent of each other" (Id. 87). "The concurrence of thirteen
distinct sovereignties," said Hamilton, " is requisite under the confederation (Fede-
ralist, XV). Hence the last word of these memorable papers relates to " the neces-

sity of moulding and arranging all the particulars which are to compose the whole
in such manner as to satisfy all the parties to the compact."

What was the "status" of Rhode Island and North Carolina during the interval
that they declined to become members of the Federal Union? Were they outlaws
from civilization? "I wish most earnestly," said Fisher Ames, "to see Rhode
Island federal, to finish the circle of the Union." All the earnest wishes in the
world, outside of Rhode Island, were powerless to gratify this wish. "Are gentle-
men willing, then," said Elbridge Gerry in the first Congress, "to throw Rhode
Island and North Carolina into the situation of foreign nations? They have told
you they cannot accede to the Union unless certain amendments are made." It was
on the 8th of January, 1790, that the two houses were able to unite in saying, "The
accession of the State of North Carolina to the Constitution gives us much pleasure."
Rhode Island had not been present at the Convention. " When the revolution was
accomplished," says Curtis, "the State had resumed its position of absolute sover-
eignty." In September, 1789, a "letter from the Governor of Rhode Island, giving
reasons why that State did not accede to the Union," had been addressed "To the
President, the Senate, and the House of Representatives of the Eleven States of
America, in Congress assembled " (Sparks X, 487). " Rhode Island," says Story, " did
not accede to it until more than a year after it had been in operation " (g 195). The
unanimous voice of all the people of all the other States could confer no authority
upon the Federal Government to cross the borders of Rhode Island until invited by
her own people. But in May, 1790, her accession put the thirteenth seal to the com-
pact, which, in the language of the Constitution, was "Done in convention by the
unanimous voice of the States." The Constitution drew its first breath of obligation
" between the States so ratifying the same."

The great mind of Webster (and others after him, not so great) seized on the ex-
pression in the preamble, " We, the people," as proof that the grant of power in the
Constitution was bestowed not by the States, but by the whole people of all the
States." These words, he said, must be obliterated "before any human ingenuity
or human argument can remove the popular basis on which that Constitution rests,
and turn the instrument into a mere compact between the States."

The style of the old confederacy had been "The United States of America." This
confederacy had been created by " articles of confederation and perpetual union
between the States of New Hampshire," &c. In view of the experience of perpe-
tuity under these articles, it was deemed expedient not to saddle the new articles
with such permanence of duration. But in other respects the preamble as reported
to, and actually adopted by, the Convention of 1787 was the same. " We, the people
of the States of New Hampshire," &c. (naming each of the thirteen States), "do
ordain, declare, and establish the following Constitution for the government of our-
selves and our posterity." The Committee on Style, afterwards appointed, with no
other power than "to revise the style and arrange the articles agreed to by the
House." This committee substituted the words, "We, the people of the United
States," for the enumeration of the States by name. There is, of course, no other
State than the people of that State. Had they so desired, the Committee on Style
had no authority to change the meaning of what had been previously adopted.
The chairman and penman of this committee was Gouverneur Morris. He certainly
did not design to work a change which would imply that the Constitution was not
a compact between the States, for, as has been seen, he always maintained that it
was just such a compact. Further, the preamble of 1787 could not recite as existing
a fact to be ascertained in the future. The only people of the United States for
whom that Convention could speak were the people of the States united under the
articles of confederation— the only United States then in existence.

There was a plain reason for the change in phraseology. The revised draft con-

tained the provision for the establishment of the Constitution "between the States
so ratifying the same," if so many as nine States should ratify— the Convention, as
Mr. Wilson expresses it, preferring "a partial union" of the States, " with a door
open for the accession of the rest." It could not be known in advance which States
would ratify, or whether a sufficient number ever would. The very word "union,"
in this political sense, has no application to individuals, and only applies to States.
The old Confederation was a union of States. The object of the Constitution was
"a more perfect union" of States. But if the preamble were intended for a pro-
phecy, such as Webster claimed, the prophecy would have been refuted by the fact
when it occurred.

On June 17, 1788, the New York Convention organized with sixty-five members. Of
these, it is said, forty-six were opponents and nineteen only advocates of the Con-
stitution. The vote of the people, therefore, was overwhelmingly for the opponents
of ratification. Whoever is made stronger by such "consent of the people" can
live on very little. Whence did the members of this convention derive authority to
sign away the existence of their constituents— their freedom, sovereignty, and inde-
pendence—if this be really the tenor of their subsequent act? On the 16th of July
a plan of ratification was proposed, which was rejected. On the 19th a conditional
ratification was proposed, with a bill of rights prefixed, and amendments to be
added. On the 23d it was moved that the words " on condition " should be struck
out, and the words " in full confidence " substituted, which was carried by a majority
of two. Cn the 26th the Constitution was ratified by a vote of 30 to 27 , but prefaced
by a declaration strictly reserving everything not expressly granted. A circular-
letter directed to be laid before the Governors of the several States discloses the
dubious character of even this slender majority :

" Poughkeepsie, July 28, 1788.

" Sir : We, members of the Convention of this State, have deliberately and maturely
considered the Constitution proposed for the United States. Several articles in it
appear so exceptionable to a majority of us that nothing but the fullest confidence of
obtaining a revision of them by a general convention, and an invincible reluctance
to separating from our sister States, could have prevailed upon a sufficient number
to ratify it without stipulating for previous amendments. We all unite in opinion
that such a revision will be necessary to recommend it to the appobation of a numer-
ous body of our constituents. * * Our attachment to our sister States, and the con-
fidence we repose in them, cannot be more forcibly demonstrated thah by acceding
to a Government which many of us think very imperfect."

With absolute unanimity this Convention said: We are "acceding to a Govern-
ment"; and with the same unanimity they said : Our reliance is on States. The
people of all the States, as forming an aggregate community, was not distantly
imagined.

Equally, in Massachusetts, ratification could only be obtained by the amendments
proposed ; of which the first was, " That it be explicitly declared that all powers not
expressly delegated to Congress are reserved to the several States, to be by them exer-
cised "—this being deemed by Samuel Adams " consonant with the second article in
the present Confederation, that each State retains its sovereignty, freedom, and inde-
pendence, and every power, jurisdiction, and right which is not by this Confedera-
tion expressly delegated to the United States in Congress assembled."

The Constitution does not rest on popular ratification. By the vote of the people
it was not ratified. It was created by the will of the States, acting as sovereigns.
Rights are either natural or acquired. Is the right of the North to rule the South a
natural right? Surely the sword of Washington was not drawn for that. Acquired
rights (as distinct from violent wrongs) are only derived from agreement or compact.
The relations between these United States did not originate in force. Then they

must have been created by compact. Where has this strange pretension been nomi-
nated in the bond? Each one of these sovereign States had fought for sovereignty
and independence, and the sovereignty and independence of each had been acknowl-
edged by the world. Is the relinquishment of that which has been painfully won a
necessary or natural implication? Are freedom, sovereignty, and independence
things to be waived by implication ? Was the hard victory thrown away in the
morning hour of rejoicing ? Each new State has been admitted to become a member
of the Federal Union, with the same rights of freedom, sovereignty, and independ-
ence as the other States. Is this solemn farce enacted on the hypothesis that the
other States have no sovereignty, freedom, independence ?

The only authority to modify the compact of the Confederation was the recom-
mendation of Congress (February 21, 1787) that " a convention of delegates who shall
have been appointed by the several States be held at Philadelphia, for the sole and
express purpose of revising the articles of confederation, and reporting to Congress and
the several Legislatures such alterations and provisions therein as shall, when agreed
to in Congress and confirmed by the States, render the Federal Constitution adequate
to the exigencies of government and the preservation of the Union." "The sole
and express purpose " was revision, not revolution ; not to change the existing com-
pact to something which was not a compact, but to change it by alterations and
provisions therein; to form "a more perfect Union" on the lines of the existing
Union. The work of revision was to be prepared by the several States— i. e., by dele-
gates " appointed by the several States," and to have no binding force until " con-
firmed by the States." "The Federal Constitution," said William Lowndes, in 1812,
" was instituted by the States, that the strength of the whole might be combined for
the protection of any part which should be attacked." From this source arose the
General Government, which the same great statesman said, in 1818, " has been created
by the people, and for the people" ; which Webster, in his reply to Hayne, called
"the people's Government, made for the people, made by the people, and answer-
able to the people " ; which was pronounced by Theodore Parker, in 1850, " the Gov-
ernment of all the people, by all the people, for all the people." The Federal Union
becomes such a government by resting upon States which are such governments. It
will remain such, just so far as it remains a government created by the voluntary
act of the States for themselves and the people of each.

On the 25th of January, 1883, Mr. Edmunds, of Vermont, said in the Senate : " The
notion of fidelity to one's own State, whether her course be thought right or not, is
almost a natural instinct; and whether it be defensible on broad grounds or not,
who does not sympathize with it?" One is tempted to say that it is " both almost
and altogether" natural. It is a part of the immutable constitution of human
nature. Upon such natural instincts true statesmanship is wont to build. Not
irrelevant is the late speech of Gladstone: "If the maintenance of the Union by
force, actual or in reserve, is necessary, the value of the Union is questionable."
Therefore, in an article (An Experiment in Federation) in the Nineteenth Century for
February, 1893, it is suggested by Sir Robert Stout : " There is one point that may be
worth considering in this connection, and that is whether a Federal Constitution
such as is proposed for the Australian Commonwealth should provide for the with-
drawal of States from the federation ; * * that a State refusing to accept a pro-
posed change in any such fundamental provision should have the right to withdraw.
Such a provision in the proposed Australian Constitution would be a safeguard."
Such a safeguard Samuel Adams believed had been secured, and " in full confidence "
• of it other States than New York had acceded. " Ours," said Robert Goodloe Har-
per, in 1812, "is a Government of opinion, and not of force." So its origin pro-
claimed it. In respect to such a General Government and Federal Union, the lan-
guage of Mr. Storrs, of New York, in the House, on the 18th of December, 1820, is a

rigid deduction of logic. " Whenever the period arrives that shall render it neces-
sary to unite the States by the arm of force, the Confederacy dissolves with the moral
principle which is the foundation of our Union." Such is the inevitable deduction
from the premises, correctly stated in the Senate, by Mr. Hillhouse, of Connecticut
(January 15, 1802). "This" (the Constitution) "is the bond Of union between six-
teen sovereign, independent States" ; from what Mr. King, of New York, described,
in the same body (March 18, 1824), as " the established provisions of the compact by
which, under the guarantee of all to each, the States expected to remain separate,
coequal, and sovereign republics."

At December term, 1860, on a motion in behalf of the State of Kentucky for a rule
on the Governor of Ohio to show cause why a mandamus should not issue, com-
manding him to restore a fugitive from justice, the court, without a dissenting voice,
decided : " The word ' duty,' in the act of 1793, means the moral obligation of the
State to perform the compact in the Constitution, * * But Congress cannot coerce
a State officer, as such, to perform any duty by act of Congress." After referring to
the provision under the articles, it is said by the court : " But as these Colonies had
then, by the Declaration of Independence, become separate and independent sov-
ereignties, against which treason might be committed, their compact is carefully
worded, &c. ; and when these Colonies were about to form a still closer union by the
present Constitution, but yet preserving their sovereignty, they had learned from
experience the necessity of this provision. * * The performance of this duty,
however, is left to depend on the fidelity of the State executive, to the compact
entered into with the other States, when it adopted the Constitution of the United
States." (Commonwealth of Kentucky v. Dennison, Governor, 24 How. 66.)

The logic of history would seem to have received judicial vindication.

III.

" Of all forms of involuntary restraint, under which one class of human beings is
subjected to the control of another class, that exerted by Southern masters and mis-
tresses over their slaves was the mildest and least objectionable. The evidence of
this fact is complete, from the relation of numerous impartial foreign witnesses ; but
the negative evidence is still more conclusive ; for it is not known that, among the
whole four millions of Southern blacks, any one has been found to have complained
of grievous wrong from his owner to the armies which have penetrated their coun-
try. * * It is equally certain that the aggregate number of those who were
seduced from their homes by the unceasing efforts of the Abolitionists, during a
series of years, was really inconsiderable. * * During the whole progress of the
long struggle, even after the President had promulgated his decree of emancipation,
and when the armies of the United States had their most widely extended possession
of Southern territory, no symptom of insurrection is known to have manifested itself
among the slaves. This fact shows either great indifference to the boon of freedom
on their part, or a singular degree of control exercised over them by their masters ;
perhaps both." (Origin of the Late War (George Lunt, Boston), p. 175.)

The Christian Examiner (Boston) of September, 1854, referring to the maxim of the
anti-slavery movement, "unsparing hostility to slavery as a sin," comments as fol-
lows : " It is as ridiculous as it is unjust to represent slave-masters as mere tyrants
or speculators in the limbs of men. Kind feeling springs up where human inter-
course is so near and constant. For personal kindness and real affection towards
the blacks, the Southerners are as much superior to us as we hold them inferior in
the abstract sense of justice and right" — showing, the writer kindly adds, "that
God may have endued slave-holders with conscience and human feeling like our.
own."

It might not be underserving a casual thought, whether in the condition of the
negro, " personal kindness and reaLjaffection " was not very nearly as useful as the
" abstract sense of justice and right."

The free-soil Constitution of Kansas, framed at Topeka, and ratified by an over-
whelming majority of the anti-slavery party, seems to deem the African race so
inferior and degraded " as to exclude them forever from Kansas, whether they be
bond or free." (Inaugural Address of Robert J. Walker, May, 1857.)

The phraseology of the framers had not ceased to be common parlance in 1836. In
this year Governor Everett, in his message to the Legislature of Massachusetts, re-
minds them that it was " deemed a point of the highest public policy by the non-
slave-holding States, notwithstanding the existence of slavery in their sister States,
to enter with them into the present Union on the basis of the constitutional com-
pact. That no union could have been formed on any other basis, is a fact of his-
torical notoriety ; and is asserted by General Hamilton, in the reported debates of
the New York Convention for adopting the Constitution. This compact expressly
recognizes the existence of slavery. * * Everything that tends to disturb the re-
lations created by this compact is at war with its spirit. * * A conciliatory for-
bearance with regard to this subject in the non-slave-holding States would
strengthen the hands of a numerous class of citizens of the South who desire the
removal of the evil." The joint special committee to which this portion of the
message was referred reported : " Whatever emotions such a view may excite in the
mind of the philanthropist, the right of the master to the slave is as undoubted as
the right to any other property. * * They (the committee) have no sympathy with
that false benevolence which, in order to liberate the slave, is willing to destroy
the hope of liberty itself by plunging the country in all the horrors of civil war.
* * There is an appeal which this Legislature cannot safely resist. One of its first
duties here is solemnly to swear that it will support the Constitution of the United
States ; and your committee beg gentlemen to consider how they will answer the
observation of that oath, by promoting or countenancing those wild schemes which
cannot but deprive their brother of the guarantee which that Constitution does pro-
vide for his security in the possession of his property and all its legal rights."

"Before this unfortunate agitation commenced a very large and growing party
existed in several of the slave States in favor of the gradual abolition of slavery,
and now not a voice is heard there in support of such a measure. The Abolitionists
have postponed the emancipation of the slaves in at least three or four States of this
Union for at least half a century." (James Buchanan, in United States Senate,
January 4, 1838.)

Decisions which anticipated that made in the Dred Scott case were Pollard's Les-
see v. Hagan, et al., 3 How. 22 ; Permoli v. Municipality, Id. 610 (at January term,
1845) ; and Strader v. Graham, 10 Id. 82 (December term, 1850).

" The ordinance of 1787 cannot confer jurisdiction upon the court. It was itself
superseded by the adoption of the Constitution of the United States, which placed
all the States on a perfect equality, which they would not be if the ordinance con-
tinued to be in force after its adoption." (Strader v. Graham, Id.)

Justices Curtis and McLean dissented from the Dred Scott decision. Referring to
the ordinance of 1787, the former says : " It does not appear to me to be important
in this connection that the clause in the ordinance which prohibited slavery was
one of a series of articles of what is therein termed a compact. The Congress of
the Confederation had no power to make such a compact, nor to act at all on the
subject." The learned justice argues, however, that as the Federal Congress did
afterwards legislate in the case of Ohio and Tennessee, for example, to admit States
under or exclude them from the operation of this ordinance, it shows "that it was
then understood Congress might make a regulation prohibiting slavery." Certainly

it was so "understood," just as it was so "understood" by the Congress which
passed the ordinance in 1787. The question was whether it was rightly so under-
stood. The Federal Congress assumed that the ordinance of 1787 was competently
enacted, which the learned justice himself says was an erroneous assumption. This
great jurist had no misgivings as to the complete independence of the original
parties to the federal compact. In a speech made in Boston, in 1850, he supposes
the case that some one had been mad enough to rise in the ratifying convention of
his State and say : "I deny that Massachusetts, as a sovereign and civilized State,
has the rightful power to make this compact ; for here is a stipulation in it, that per-
sons held to service in States now foreign to us, escaping hither, shall be given up to
be carried back again." He answers : " Has not a State the right to make compacts
and treaties, and when they are made are they not to be kept ? "

The following statement, made in the United States Senate seven years prior to the
Dred Scott decision, one would think might have precluded the dissent in that case
of Mr. Justice McLean :

" When the Wilmot proviso was first proposed— I have never concealed or denied
that had it been pushed to a vote— I should have voted for it. * * In examining
the Constitution, with reference to the whole matter, more narrowly than I had
ever done before, I was startled by the conviction that no authority was granted in
that instrument to Congress to legislate over the Territories ; and that consequently
there was no power to pass the Wilmot proviso. Not satisfied with my own impres-
sions, and being unwilling to take such a ground without proper consideration, I
determined immediately to converse with some person fully conversant with the
history of the legislation and the judicial decisions on the subject. In looking
about for that purpose, it immediately occurred to me that an eminent judge of the
Supreme Court (Judge McLean, of Ohio), from his position and association, as well
as from his residence in the West, could give me better information upon this sub-
ject than any other person. Anticipating that some discussion might soon arise that
would render this explanation proper, I applied to that gentleman some days since,
and requested his permission thus publicly to refer to him should I deem it neces-
sary. This he cheerfully granted, and I now make use of his name with his own
consent. I immediately repaired to him, and stated my doubts, as well as the cir-
cumstances which gave rise to them. I need not repeat the conversation here. It
is enough to say he confirmed my impressions, and informed me that, in an article
published in the National Intelligencer a day or two previously, which I had not seen,
I would find his views fully set forth. That article has since been republished in
other papers, and has attracted a good deal of attention, as it deserved, for it
is powerfully written. I speak, sir, solely of the views which it presents of
the power of Congress to legislate for the Territories. The question of slavery
which it discusses, I do not refer to. After reading this article my doubts
ripened into convictions, and I took the ground, to which I shall always adhere,
that the Wilmot proviso is unconstitutional." (General Cass, in United Stares
Senate, February 20, 1850.)

In 1848 the Senate appointed a committee, evenly divided between the sections, to
consider measures for the organization of territorial governments in Oregon, Cali-
fornia, and New Mexico. "As soon as we assembled, a proposition was made by a
member of the South to extend the Missouri Compromise to the Pacific. You, sir,
remember it well. The vote upon it stood : Four Northern members against it, and
four Southern members for it. The proposition was renewed in every form in which
we could conceive it would be proper, but our Northern friends rejected it as often
as it was proposed. We discussed it ; we entreated them to adopt it. We did not
pretend that it was a constitutional measure, but it had been held by many as a
compact between the North and the South, and in such an emergency as that then

existing, it had been justified by the people as a measure of peace. * * It appeared
that if the line were extended to the Pacific, the free labor of the North would have
the exclusive occupation of 1,600,000 square miles of land in the Territories outside
of the States, and the South 262,000, in which, observe, slavery could only be tole-
rated in case the people residing there should allow it." (John M. Clayton, in
United States Senate, March 1, 1854.)

It was on the motion of the same Senator, who was afterwards Secretary of State
in Taylor's administration, that a compromise bill was reported to the Senate, asking
for the reference of the whole matter to the Supreme Court, which passed the Senate,
but was defeated in the House.

"I am against any Compromise line, yet I would have been willing to acquiesce
in a continuance of the Missouri Compromise in order to preserve, under the present
trying circumstances, the peace of the Union. One of the resolutions in the House
to that effect was offered at my suggestion. I said to a friend there, ' Let us not be
disturbers of the Union. Abhorrent to my feelings as is that Compromise line, let it be
adhered to in good faith ; and if the other portions of the Union are willing to stand
by it, let us not refuse to stand by it.' * * But it was voted down by an over-
whelming majority." (John O. Calhoun, in United States Senate, February 19, 1847 )

" If, according to the argument of the Senator from South Carolina, the Missouri
Compromise was such an odious measure, and has had such an injurious effect upon
the South, is it not singular that we find every Southern man voting for it and every
Northern man voting against it whenever it is offered ? " (Mr. Hale, of New Hamp-
shire, March 19, 1850.)

"The legislative power of Congress on this subject (the recapture of fugitive
slaves) has been recognized by the General Assembly of the State of Ohio in their
statutes ; by the Supreme Court of the United States, and by the Supreme Courts of
Massachusetts, New York, Pennsylvania, Indiana, Illinois, California, by the Supreme
Court of Ohio on the circuit, and, indeed, by the Supreme Courts of every State in
the Union, where the question has been made, and has never been denied by the
Supreme Court of any State— the courts of Wisconsin, notwithstanding the popular
impression, not forming an exception." (Ex Parte Bushnell, 9 Ohio St. 78.)

It was on high State' s-Kights ground that the legislation of 1850 was resisted in
Wisconsin and elsewhere.

"The people referred to (in the preamble to the Constitution) must be intended to
mean the people of the respective States. * * By the authority of the States
were the people called upon to adopt or reject the Constitution. By the people of
the respective States was it adopted, and when ratified by nine States (not a majority
of the people of the Union to be formed), was it to become operative. * * On
their separation from Great Britain, they were each sovereign and independent ; as
completely so as the government from which they had revolted. * * If that
instrument (the Constitution) ceased to operate, the States would move on, perform-
ing their present functions, and probably resuming the powers before delegated."
In re Sherman Booth, 3 Wis., 94, 95, 96. " As sovereigns they entered into the com-
pact with sovereigns; as sovereigns will they execute." Id. 127. This opinion of
the Wisconsin judges fairly illustrates a school of politics which has never failed to
grasp tenaciously the federative character of the Union, so long as its adherents
were out of power ; and as loudly proclaimed that the United States was " a nation
spelt with a big N," the first moment they were in.

" Sir, of all the bitterest enemies towards the unfortunate negro race, there are
none to compare with these Abolitionists, pretended friends, who, like the Siamese
twins, connect themselves with the negro ; or, like the centaur of old, mount not on
the back of a horse, but on the back of the negro, to ride themselves into power ;
and in order to display a friendship they feel only for themselves, and not for th&
negro race." (Henry Clay, in United States Senate, April 10, 1850.)

In 1853 the Legislature of Illinois enacted : "If any negro or mulatto, bond or free,
shall hereafter come into this State and remain ten days, with the intention of re-
siding in the same, every such negro shall be deemed guilty of a high misdemeanor,
and for the first offense shall be fined $50. * * If the said negro or mulatto shall
be found guilty, and the fine assessed be not paid forthwith, * * the said justice
shall at public auction proceed to sell said negro or mulatto to any person who will
pay said fine and costs for the shortest time." In pursuance whereof, the following
appeared in an Illinois paper :

"State of Illinois, ")
St. Clair County, j"

"Legal Notice.— Whereas, Jackson Redman, a mulatto, was, on the 7th day of
April, A. D. 1857, complained against, &c, agreeably to the act of February 12, 1853,
to prevent the immigration of negroes and mulattoes ; * * This, therefore, is to give
notice that, at 1 o'clock P. M., on the 18th day of April, 1857, at my office, in Belle-
ville, in said county, I will proceed to sell at public auction the services of the said
Jackson Redman to any person or persons who will pay said fine and costs, for the
shortest time, according to the provisions of the act aforesaid.

" Posted this 8th day of April, A. D. 1857.

"Casper Thrill, Justice of the Peace."
(McCluskey's Political Encyclopedia, p. 249.)

A State which could enact and enforce the above statute might have experienced
some compunctious visitations for the South. What more did the South do than
own and use the services of negroes or mulattoes cormorant in their commonwealths ?
And if the rare and random negro — the mere sporadic revelations of the dark conti-
nent—were in Illinois a nuisance, calling for such drastic legislation, what should
preponderant numbers be in South Carolina and Mississippi? At this very time
Abraham Lincoln was girding on his harness " to put in course of ultimate extinc-
tion," slavery in the South ; to compel the Southern States to elevate their bondmen
to freedom. Why did he not at once bethink himself of the barbarous statute of his
own State, which reduced freemen to bondage ?

There is indubitable evidence that, while in the Committee of Thirteen, he (Mr.
Davis) was willing to accept the compromise of Mr. Crittenden, and recede from
secession. This committee, and a House committee of thirty-three members, were
then considering "the state of the Union." The compromise failed, because, as
Senator Hale said, on the 18th day of December, 1860, the day it was introduced, it
was determined that the controversy should not be settled in Congress. (S. S. Cox,
" Three Decades," p. 69.)

The Territories had then an area of 1,200,000 square miles. The Crittenden propo-
sition would have given the North 900,000 of these square miles, and applied the Chi-
cago doctrine to that area. It would have left the remaining fourth substantially to
be carved out as free or slave States, at the option of the people, when the Territories
were admitted as States. This proposition the radicals denounced. Notwithstand-
ing the President-elect was then in a minority of a million of the popular vote, they
were determined, as Mr. Chase wrote to Portsmouth, Ohio, from the Peace Conven-
tion, to use the power while they had it, and to prevent a settlement. (Id. 78.)

" I knew the action of the South was not impulsive ; I knew there was a reason
for it. They said their capital was to be rendered worthless, their property to be de-
stroyed, and their country made desolate. God forbid that I should chide them for
thinking so ! " (Mr. Granger, of New York, in the Peace Congress.)

" Thirty years ago the subject of abolishing slavery was agitated in Virginia.
Some of the most eloquent speeches were made in favor of the abolition movement
that I ever read. The act providing for gradual abolition was, I believe, lost by a

-single vote. * * The North has taken this business of abolition into its own
hands, and from the day she did so we hear no more of abolition in Virginia. * *
The slave-trade was once fostered by the North ; that was when it was profitable,
and when large fortunes were made in that trade by Northern men. When it be-
came unprofitable, the North began to denounce it, and to call it sinful. Now we
fastened this institution upon the South, cannot we permit her to deal with it as she
chooses? I do not say that there is a necessary conflict between the white and
black races, but I assert that they cannot unite— that they cannot occupy the same
country upon an equality. Our free laborers of the North will not work with slaves
or with blacks." (Mr. Ewing, of Ohio, Id.)

"I, as a Jerseyman, proud of the title, and everything connected with it, wish to
say a word to the South in all frankness and candor. I freely tell you that in my
opinion you are entitled to guarantees, and to constitutional guarantees." (Mr.
Frelinghuysen, Id.)

The substance of Webster's speech, on the 7th of March, was that the status of the
whole of Texas, south of 36°, 3(y, was already determined by law, which could not
be repealed without the violation of contract ; that there was not left a single foot
of soil, the future character of which was not already determined by the law of
man, or more insuperable law of nature ; that the future of California and New
Mexico was settled by the law of nature, of physical geography, and he saw no
necessity to re-enact the will of God merely for the purpose of taunt and reproach.
The only part of the country which admitted of slave labor was governed by the
obligation of contract, which he for one would do nothing to impair. " I will not,"
he said in effect, " take an oath to support the Constitution and the laws with a
mental reservation to disregard it. I will not join a party whose corner-stone is per-
jury." Of such were the vera pro gratis he dedicated to his constituents. For this
New England sprang up, with a remorseless and reverberating wrath, to rend in
pieces her most illustrious statesman ; for this all the low creeping things of aboli-
tion shed their venom on his life while he lived, and covered with the filth of their
slime his memory when he died.

The anti-slavery agitation for an invariable restriction was " a good enough Mor-
gan" for the purpose of consolidating the North, but for any purpose of real states-
manship was quickly adjudicated to be a sham by the Republicans themselves.
Acts organizing the Territories of Colorado, Dakota, and Nevada, containing no
word of prohibition on the subject of slavery, were passed by Republican majorities
in both houses. Sumner, Wade, and Chandler acquiesced in the Senate. Thaddeus
Stevens had no word of opposition in the House. " As matter of historic justice, the
Republicans who waived the anti-slavery restriction should at least have offered and
recorded their apology for any animadversions they had made upon the course of
Mr. Webster ten years before. Every prominent Republican Senator who agreed in
1861 to abandon the principle of the Wilmot proviso, in organizing the Territories of
Colorado and Nevada, had, in 1850, heaped reproach upon Mr. Webster for not in-
sisting upon the same principle for the same Territory. * * It cannot be denied
that this action of the Republican party was a severe reflection upon their prolonged
agitation for prohibition of slavery in the Territories by congressional enactment."
(Blaine's "Twenty Years," Vol. I, pp. 271, 272.)

" I am ready to say that if Congress were to attack within the States the institution
of slavery, that then, Mr. President, my voice would be for war. * * Then we
should be acting in defense of our rights, our domicils, our property, our safety, our
lives." (Henry Clay, in 1850.)

It is true Clay added, that war waged to force the introduction of slavery into the
Territories would not command the sympathy of mankind. But, however it may
have been represented or misrepresented, the South certainly went to war for no

6±

such purpose ; for by the very act of secession the South had virtually relinquished
the Territories with the Union. And the North certainly did not go to war to restrain
the introduction of slavery into the Territories ; for, in the first place, secession itself
was the most effectual restraint which could possibly have been devised ; and, in the
second, the unmolested North had enacted the very legislation claimed to be pro-
ductive of that end, and all the legislation for which the South had ever asked, just
as that same North was clearing her decks for action, and about to give the word
to fire.

" Suppose that the South was the most wealthy and the most populous, and pos-
sessed the greatest number of electoral votes, and that it should elect a President and
Vice-President of slave-holders from the South to rule over the North. Do you think,
fellow-citizens, that you would submit to this injustice? [Cries of "No!" "No!"]
Truly you wouJd not, but one universal cry of ' No ' would rend the skies ; and can
you suppose your Southern brethren less sensitive than you on this subject, or less
jealous of their rights ? If you do, let me tell you that you are mistaken ; and there-
fore you perceive that the consequence of the success of such a party, with such an
object, must be the dissolution of this glorious Union." (Millard Fillmore at Roches-
ter.— National Intelligencer, July 2, 1856.)

When the party to which Fillmore referred had secured the Executive and the
House, and a majority of the States, and shouted from the house-tops their intention
to so reorganize the Supreme Court as to reverse the prior decisions thereof ; nay ,
which further advertised their intention to reconipose not only the Constitution, but
the Bible and Divine Providence generally to compass their ends, was it not natural
for the South to say : Seeing that you have no compunctions of conscience in respect
to treating with Brazil or Spanish Cuba, albeit they are slave-holding communities ;
seeing that you feel no contamination from the touch of slave-holders when they live
elsewhere than in our commonwealths, and only feel constrained to interfere with
the slaves of others where you are under clear engagement to do nothing of the
kind ; let us, then, be unto you even as Cuba or Brazil, with whom you observe your
treaties, because you know in these cases " a bargain broken on one side is broken
on all sides," although you spit upon the assurance of your own Webster, that the
same truism is equally applicable to the sister States of your own Federal Union.

To this the reply, in substance, was : Nee tecum possum vivere, nee sine te.

But if, upon the mere admission of new States, it might be urged by Mr. Gross, of
New York, in 1811, "Against a principle leading to such consequences, each and
every of the original States may say, Non in hxc fozdera veni," how much more legiti-
mately could it be claimed, when the thing proposed was not the mere admission of
new States, but the destruction of old States, and the threatened coercion of their
rights of property, and the States themselves, into a " course of ultimate extinction " ?

The true issue between the sections was stated by Lord John Russell : " The North
is fighting for empire, the South, for independence " ; or, as announced by the
President of the Confederacy in the midst of the conflict, " We are not fighting for
slavery— we are fighting for independence."

FIRST COMPANY.

Roll of First Company Richmond Howitzers ', as mustered into
the service of the State of Virginia, April 21, 1861.

Captain John C. Shields.

First Lieutenant W. P. Palmer.

Second Lieutenant E. S. McCarthy.

Privates.

Anderson, Lucius
Anderson, Thomas B.
Armistead, Thomas S.
August, James A.
Barnes, Edward
Barnes, Frank
Barnes, Henry
Barr, John W.
Ballard, F. S.
Ballard, William
Blackadar, W. H.
Bowen, J. J.
Bradley, A. S.
Bugg, Wilson N.
Boudar, Henry B.
Binford, J. H.
Brander, James
Binford, Napoleon
Cullingworth, J. N.
Cooke, J. Esten
Crump, George R.
Croxton, Charles
Dibrell, Anthony
Daniel, Fred. S.
Davis, D. O.
Drewry, W. S.
5

Doggett, D. S.
Early, George W.
Eggleston, J. Cary
Ellett, James M.
Flournoy, John
Gibson, James W.
Goddin, E. C.
Gretter, W. P.
Harrington, Charles A.
Huffard, D. S.
Harvey, W. L.
Harvey, Martin L.
Howard, Charles W.
Harwood, Charles
Harris, B. F.
Herring, John
Kean, W. C, Jr.
Keppler, Addison
Knight, R. D.
Lewis, W. T.
Lewis, C. Montgomery
Beake, P. S.
McCreery, J. V. L.
McCabe, James E.
Macon, Thomas J.
Marsden, Robert

Meade, Hodijah Sclater, L. H.

Moseley, John Simpson, J. H.

Massie, Henry Simons, W. E.

Michaud, Paul Schooler, John H.

Morton, Allen Townsend, H. C.

Palmer, William Tatum, W. H.

Pleasants, Charles M. Todd, Charles L.

Pleasants, John Todd, William R.

Poindexter, George H. Taliaferro, Whit.

Powell, Junius L. Trabue, C. E.

Powell, Hugh L. Williams, Henry S.

Puryear, W. H. Wyatt, John W.

Rahm, Frank Wyatt, Richard W.

Richardson, R. E. Wayt, William

Steane, Edmund G. Wise, John B.

Sublett, Henry Wortham, R. C.

Selden, Charles Whiting, Thomas
Yancey, John B.

First Company Richmond Howitzers — List of
Engagements.

Falls Church, July 4, 1861.
Bull Run (Blackburn Ford), July 18, 1861.
Manassas, July 21, 1861.
White's Ferry, August 24, 1861.
Loudoun Heights, October 15, 1861.
Ball's Bluff, October 21, 1861.
Lee's Mill (Yorktown), April, 1862.
Dam No. 1 (Yorktown), April, 1862.
Williamsburg, May 5, 1862.
Seven Pines, May 31, 1862.
Savage Station, June 29, 1862.
Frayzer's Farm, June 30, 1862.
Malvern Hill, July 1, 1862.
Sharpsburg, September 17, 1862.
Fredericksburg, December 13, 1862.
Chancellorsville, May 1-4, 1863.

Gettysburg, July 2, 3, 1863.
Morton's Ford, February 6, 1864.
Spotsylvania, May 8-12, 1864.
Pole Green Church.
Cold Harbor, June 3, 1864.
Appomattox Station, April 8, 1865.

Paroles First Company Richmond Howitzers.

Sergeant T. S. Armistead — one private horse.
Corporal C. A. Harrington.

Privates.

L. C. Anderson, E. C. Knight,

J. R. Booker, J. B. Minor,

M. L. Cary, J. C. Tatum,

G. L. Gregg, S. M. Petticord,

W. J. Hardy, one private horse; J. Williams.

Total enlisted, 12.

Temporarily with Hardaway's Battalion.

Note. — The First Company of Howitzers is not included
in the published list of those surrendered at Appomattox, for
the reason that by the interposition of the enemy's lines be-
tween them and the Courthouse, they had been cut off from
the main body of the army.

On the evening before the surrender the Company, with
other artillery, sustained and repulsed an attack by a body of
the enemy's cavalry. A junction with the main body of the
army being impracticable, the Company was marched in the
direction of Lynchburg. In the early morning of the day
of surrender, orders were received under which the battery
was destroyed and the Company disbanded.

Nowhere did the command more faithfully discharge their
duty than in those last days of trial and danger. Even after
the disbandment a number of them made their way to North
Carolina, intending to join Johnston's army.

FIRST COMPANY.

Captains.

Shields, John C. ' McCarthy, Edward S.

Palmer, William P. (Killed at 2d Cold Harbor, Va.)

Anderson, R. M.

Lieutenants.

Williams, Henry S. McCarthy, D. S.

Armistead, Robert Moncure, Travers D.

Nimmo, John

Orderly Sergeant.

Blackadar, William H. (Wounded at Malvern Hill, Va.)

Sergeants.

Sclater, Lem H. Poindexter, George H.

McCreery, J. V. L. Dibrell, Anthony
Cooke, Tohn Esten (Wounded at Gettysburg Pa.)

Todd, Charles L. Wortfaam, Richard C.

Trabue, Charles C. Km£ht> Robert |D.

Corporals.
Morton, Allen Sublett, . Harrison

(Killed at Gettysburg, Pa.) (Wounded at Malvern Hill, Va.)

Yancey, John P. Harrington, Charles A.

Steane, Edmund G. Townsend, Harry C.

Williams T Peter (Wounded at Williamsburg, Va.>

Privates.

Adkisson, C. Eugene Ayres, Samuel B.

Anderson, James E. Ayres, Thomas

Anderson, Junius H. Baird, John D.

Anderson, Lucius W. Ballard, F. Stribling

Anderson, Lewis C. Ballard, William

Anderson, Thomas B. Barksdale, Thomas

Arents, Frank S. ^ (Killed a* Chancellorsville.Va.)

Armstead, Thomas S. Barnes, Ed. F

August, James A. Barnes, Frank J

Ayres, John G. Barnes, Henry C.
(Wounded at 2d Cold Harbor, Va.) tfarnes, JOnn

Barnes, Walker
Barr, John W.

(Wounded at Leesburg, Va.)

Barr, David
Baxter, George
Bean, W.
Bell, John
Bell, W. H.
Biniord, James H.
Binford, Napoleon
Blair, Walter
Booker, George

(Wounded at Gettysburg, Pa.)

Booker, J. R.
Booker, R. M.
Boudar, Henry B.
Bowen, J. J.
Bowman, S. H.
Boyd, W. T.
Bradley, A. Sidney
Brander, James

(Died in service.)

Bransford, John
Bugg, W. N.
Burr, Henry
Camm, Charles
Care, Riter G.
Carter, Dr. L. W.

(Wounded at 2d Cold Harbor, Va.)

Carter, H. C.
Carter, James T.
Carter, S. J.
Cary, Howard
Cary, William L.
Chesterman, A. D.
Close, Robert
Colburn, William S.

(Died in service.)

Coyle, Cornelius

(Wounded at Spotsylvania, Va.)

Crouch, F. Nichols
Crump, George R.

(Wounded at Seven Pines, Va.)

Croxton, Charles C.
Cubbage, W.
Cullingworth, Joseph N.
Dame, William M.

Daniel, Frederick S.
Davis, D. O.
Davis, Joe
Denman, A. M.
Dennie, G. H.
Dibrell, Watson S.
Dooley, C. W.
Doggett, David S.
Drewry, William S.
Dupuy, B. H.
Early, George W.
Edmundson, Henry

(Died in service.)

Eggleston, J. Cary

(Killed at Spotsylvania, Va.)

Ellett, James M.
Ellis, George H.
Ellis, J. H.
Ellyson, W. Preston
Eustace, William H.
Exall, George
Finney, William

(Died in service.)

Flournoy, John J.
French, J.
Friend, Charles N.
Gibson, James W.
Goddin, Ed. C.
Gravatt, George
Gray, Charles
Gray, Ed.

Gray, James T.

(Wounded at Appomattox, Va.)
Gray, Somerville

(Wounded at Gettysburg, Pa.)

Gretter, W. Plummer
Grigg, George L.
Grundy, T. B.
Guigon, A. B.
Hardy, William J.
Harris, B. T.
Harrison, C. A.
Harrison, George B.
Harrison, H.
Harrison, W. J.
Harrison, W. L.

Harvey, Martin L.
Harvey, Wash. L.
Harwood, C. W.
Herring, Elbridge
Herring, John H.

(Killed at Malvern Hill, Va.)

Herring, William D.
Higgason, Arthur
Howard, Charles
Howard, John C.
Huffard, D. S.
Kean, W. C.
Kean, W. C, Jr.

(Wounded at Malvern Hill, Va)

Keisir, C.
Kelley, Robert J.
Kepler, Henry

(Wounded at Gettysburg, Pa.)

Kepler, Addison
Kinsolving, C. J.
Lambert, J. Ben

(Wounded at 2d Cold Harbor, Va.)

Lamkin, William A.
Leake, P. S.
Lee, George
Lewis, C. M.

(Died in service.)

Lewis, William T.
Macon, Thomas J.

Madden,

Mallory, Ben
Maloney, P.
Marsden, F. C.
Marston, Robert

(Died in service.)

Martin, S. Taylor
Massie, Henry
Maury, Robert H., Jr.

(Wounded at Fredericksburg, Va.)

McCabe, James E.
McCabe, George

(Died in service.)

McCandlish, Robert

(Wounded at Gettysburg, Pa., and
2d Cold Harbor, Va.)

McKenna, John T.
McMillan, Charles

McNamee, J.

(Wounded at Gettysburg, Pa.)

McReynolds, S.
Meade, Hodijah
Meade, Peyton
Michaud, Paul
Minor, Jesse B.
Moore, Ed.
Moore, Robert F.
Moore, W. S.
Moran, Michael
Morris, Wm.
Morrison, Charles

Morrison,

(Killed at Sbarpsburg, Md.)

Mosby,

Mosby, O. A.
Moseley, John

(Killed at Pole Green Church, Va.)

Niven, T. M.
Ogden, Dewees

(Killed at Gettysburg, Pa.)

Page, John W.

(Died in service.)
Page, Carter
Page, William H.
Palmer, W. W.
Parker, William
Parrott, A. B.
Peachy, T. Griffin
Perry, W. H.
Petticord, S. M.

(Died in service.)

Pleasants, Charles M.

(Wounded at Spotsylvania, Va.>

Pleasants, John W.

(Wounded at Gettysburg, Pa.)

Pleasants, William A.
Poindexter, Charles

(Wounded at Gettysburg, Pa.)

Pollard, Byrd G.
Powell, Ed. W.
Powell, Hugh L.
Powell, J. L.
Price, Overton B.

(Wounded at Malvern Hill, Va.>
Puryear, W. H.
(Died in service.)

Rahm, Adolphus
Rahm, Frank
Read, Nicholas C.
Redd, Lewis
Rennie, G. H.
Richardson, Abner M.
Richardson, George P.

(Wounded at Chancellorsville, Va.)

Richardson, Robert E.
Robinson, Leigh
Rowland, R. Grattan
Royall, John B.

(Wounded at Chancellorsville and
Savage Station, Va.

Royall, R. W.
Schooler, John H.
Scott, Charles
Scott, John A.
Sears, DeWitt
Seay, John W.
Seay, Joseph
Selden, Charles
Selden, Nathaniel

(Killed at Chancellorsville, Va.)
Simons, W. E.
Simpson, J. Harvie
Skinner, Ed.
Smith, Bathurst L.
Smith, W. P.

(Wounded at Gettysburg, Pa.)

Snead, E. B.
Snead, J. H.
Snead, Dr. Albert
South, T. J.
Stiles, Eugene W.
Stiles, Robert
Stiles, Randolph R.

(Wounded at Cold Harbor, Va.)
Taliaferro, C. C.
Taliaferro, Whit.

Taliaferro, William
Tatum, John C.
Tatum, William H.
Terrell, Henry

(Killed at Gettysburg, Pa.)

Todd, John W.

(Wounded at Cold Harbor, Va.)

Todd, W. R.

(Died in service.)

Trent, S. W.
Tucker, Ben F.
Tyler, J. H.
Vaiden, Samuel E.
Vest, George S.
Waddill, William L.

(Killed at Malvern Hill, Va.)

Washington, Wallace
Wayt, William

(Died in service.)

Wharton, Richard G.
White, Thomas Ward
White, William G.

(Died in service.)
Whiting, Thomas L.

(Wounded at Williamsburg, Va.)

Williams, Frank S.
Williams, Fred.
Williams, John N.
Williams, Joseph G.
Williams, Watson L.
Williamson, Joseph A.
Wingo, Charles E.

(Wounded at Sharpsburg, Md.)
Wynne, Arthur Lee
(Died in service.)

Wise, John B.

(Wounded at Malvern Hill, Va.)

Wise, Lewis A.
Wyatt, John W.
Wyatt, Richard W.
Wyatt, Thomas B.

SECOND COMPANY.

Roll of Second Company Richmond Howitzers, as muste?'ed
into the service of the State of Virginia, as printed in a
Richmond paper at the time (1861), and preserved in a scrap-
book at the Virginia State Library.

Captain J. Thompson Brown.

First Lieutenant James Ellett.

Second Lieutenant .... William M. Archer.

The other officers not known,
cester Point.

Allen, H.
Angel, J. C.
Barnes, L. R.
Brent, T. C.
Baker, T. R.
Booker, Lewis
Bell, R. F.
Bell, Thomas
Burnley, H. M.
Binford, S. J.
Cardwell, William M.
Crane, C. T. C.
Carter, S. S.
Clarke, D. B.
Crump, G. T.
Christian, Jordan C.
Corbin, N. M.
Duvall, William
Davis, T. J.
Ellett, John S.
Estern, W. B.
Fitzhugh, J. S.
Guigon, A. B.

This company is at Glou-

Garnett, W. J.
Halyburton, W. J.
Hill, Charles
Hill, Frank D.
Hill, W. R.
Hill, Lewis R.
Hullihan, W. O.
Harvey, M. L.
Hudnall, Henry
Hobson, G. W.
Hughes, Stephen B.
Jones, L., Jr.
Jones, L. F.
Jones, H. S.
Kirby, R. L.
Langhorne, J. B.
Morton, T. E.
Miller, M. O.
McCarthy, William H.
Moore, J. B.
Mayo, J. B.
McRae, Wallace
Pleasants, R. B.

Pollard, Thomas
Pleasants, H. R.
Parrack, Thomas C.
Place, George
Sutton, Charles W.
Shook, H. C.
Sheppard, W. L.
Terrell, Joseph

Terrell, Mahlon
Timberlake, L. W.
Vest, J. H.
West, John W.
Williams, Joseph P.
Wynne, C. H.
Wharton, John Z.
Werth, John

Yates, James A.

Battles.

Combat with the gunboat
"Yankee."

Battle of Bethel.

Siege of Yorktown.

Williamsburg.

Seven Pines.

Seven Days' Battle Rich-
mond.

Maycock's Point.

Charlestown.

Fredericksburg, Decem-
ber 13, 1862.

Catherine Furnace.

Chancellorsville.

Winchester.
Gettysburg.
Hagerstown.
Mine Run.

Spotsylvania, 10th, 12th,
and 18th May, 1864.
Hanover C. H.
Second Cold Harbor.
New Market Heights.
Cedar Creek.
Siege of Petersburg.
Sailor's Creek.
Appomattox.

MUSTER-ROLL OF SECOND COMPANY RICHMOND HOWITZ-
ERS (Cutshaw's Artillery Battalion), April 9, 1865.

Captain L. F. Jones.

Second Lieutenant Joseph C. Angel.

Junior Second Lieutenant . . . Wallace McRae.

Sergeant- Major Laney Jones.

Quartermaster-Sergeant . . . Wm. G. Mordecai.

Second Sergeant R. B. Pleasants.

Third Sergeant John S. Ellett.

Fourth Sergeant Robert S. Bosher.

First Corporal Wm. H. McCarthy.

Second Corporal Geo. W. Mordecai.

Third Corporal David B. Clarke.

Fourth Corporal Joseph J. Cocke.

Fifth Corporal Joseph E. Maxey.

Eighth Corporal L. B. Franklin.

Privates:

Atkinson, James T. Lemon, William

Allgood, John T. Lewis, Theo.

Bosher, E. J. Mann, William J.

Burnley, C. T. McCarthy, Julian

Chapman, John E. McCarthy, Carlton

Ellyson, J. T. Miller, C. M.

Fitzgerald, N. Mordecai, John B.

Grigg, James A. Neighbors, William

Hudson, William D. Palmer, Charles T.

Hall, W. N. Puryear, William H.

Jessie, James M. Semple, G. W.

Jones, John T. Taliaferro, J. C.

Jones, Peter L. Waldrop, John

Johnson, William R. Winston, J. D.

Justice, D. O. Worsham, L. W.

Lawrence, S. R. Worsham, W. G.

Leftwich, T. R. Wingo, William J.

Report of arms-bearing men in battle 9th April, 1865, viz. :
3 commissioned officers and 22 enlisted men — total, 25.

L. F. Jones, Captain,
Second Company Richmond Howitzers.
Official copy:

S. V. Southall, A. A. A. General Long' s Artillery.

Note. — The above is copied from the original official copy in the
possession of the Southern Historical Society.

The report above shows only twenty-two men in battle the 9th April
(arms-bearing), while the names counted show forty-five. The expla-
nation is simply that twenty-three men had no arms in their hands.

They, however, followed the company closely on the march and in
line, and shared all its dangers.

Note. — First Lieutenant Jones, whose name does not appear, was
mortally wounded before the company reached Appomattox. Rag-
land, Binford, Pearson, and others were wounded ; Hampton was
killed ; Creed T. Davis and others were made prisoners, and others,
from various causes, could not reach Appomattox. This note is made
that the future historian of the company may be reminded to look into
these particulars, and, as far as may be, do justice to all. — Editor.

Members of the company surrendered by General Long, Brigadier-
General Artillery, while on duty at his headquarters on 9th April, 1865 :

S. W. Barnes, Corporal; T. C. Brent,

T. R. Lumpkin, H. C. Shook.

Note.— The four names above are from the original official papers
in possession of the Southern Historical Society.

SECOND COMPANY.

Captains.

Brown, J. Thompson Watson, David

Hudnall, Henry Jones, Lorraine F.

Lieutenants.

Archer, William M. Booker, Lewis

Sheppard, William L. Jones, Henry S.

Garnett, Walter Angel, J. C.

McRae, Wallace

Sergeants.

Guigon, A. B. Terrell, Mahlon

Wharton, John Z. Christian, George L.

Hughes, Stephen B. Ellett, John S.

Crane, Charles T. C. Bosher, Robert S.
Hallyburton, William G. Chappell, Joseph E.

Jones, Laney, Jr. Mordecai, William Y.

Pleasants, Reuben B. Van Name, P. M.

Vest, John H. Williams, Joseph G.

Corporals.

Caldwell, William M. Mordecai, George W.

Werth, John Cocke, Joseph J.

Hobson, George W. Barnes, Silas W.

Miller, Montgomery G. Clarke, David B.

McCarthy, William H. Maxey, Joseph E.

Hawes, S. H. Franklin, L. B.

Privates.

Abell, J. D. Atkisson, J. T.

Ackerman, James J. Baker, T. Roberts

Allen, Harvey G. Barker, W. V. B.

Allen, Henry C. Barker, William C.

Allgood, E. A. Barns, H. G. H.

Allgood, S. D. Barns, L. R.

Barry, John
Bass, W. H.
Bedford, Henry-
Bell, R. F.
Bell, Thomas Read
Binford, Ballard
Binford, James E.
Binford, Napoleon
Binford, S. J.
Blanton, William E.
Botto, Frank
Booker, Thomas
Brent, T. Carroll
Brooks, A. E.
Brown, George W.
Bryan, St. George T. C.
Bosher, E. J.
Burnley, H. Martin
Buchanan, Martin
Buchanan, William
Burnley, Charles T.
Calayo, John A.
Carson, J. C.
Carter, George A.
Carter, Sam S.
Casey, James
Chapman, James
Charles, John

Chew,

Chinn, George E.
Christian, J. C.
Christian, R. L.
Cocke, C. E.
Cocke, Chastain E.
Cocke, Erasmus
Coke, R. B.
Corbin, N. M.
Crane, Henry R.
Craycraft, James E.
Cross, John
Crump, George R.
Davis, Creed T.
Davis, T. J.
Davis, William L.

Dawson,

Douglas, W. T.
Drew, Dr.

Drilling, John (bugler)
Dunn, W. W.
Duval, Alexander
Duval, William W.
Eastin, William B.
Ellett, W. W.
Elliott, William
Ellyson, J. Taylor
England, John
Faxon, John W.
Fitzhugh, John S.
Fitzgerald, N. M.
Fleming, A.
Fleming, John S.
Fleming, V. M.
Fleming, William B.
Foster, James B., Jr.
Foulkes, J. W.
French, J. Compton
Garnett, Booker
Garnett, William J.
Gouldin, Samuel R.
Green, Samuel S.
Grigg, James A.
Hagan, John
Hamilton, W. H.

Hansborough,

Harlow, H. M.
Harrison, Thomas R~
Harvey, M. L.
Harvey, W. G.
Heath, William
Hill, Charles
Hill, Frank D.
Hill, Lewis R.
Hill, W. R., Jr.
Hilliard, Richard
Hines, John
Hobson, F. Deane
Hodges, J. T.
Houston, Archer

Houston, John W.
Hudson, W. D.
Hughes, George P.
Hullihen, Rev. W. Q.
Hundley, Joseph W.
Hutcheson, Hugh
Hutcheson, W. K.
James, John
Jessee, Jim M.
Johnson, W. R.
Jones, "Chinch"
Jones, J. T.
Jones, "Jack"
Jones, John Peter
Jones, John Wiley
Jones, L. Jr.
Jones, Peter L.
Justice, Daniel O.
Kemp, Wyndham

Kenna,

Kennedy, William M.
Kersey, Robert
Kirby, R. M.
Kirby, W. Reynolds

Lampkin,

Langhorne, J. B.
Lawson, Alexander
Lawson, Campbell G.
Lee, Harry
Lee, W. P.
Lee, W. W.
Leftwich, Thomas R.
Lemmon, William
Lewis, William P.

Luck,

Lumpkin, James
Mahone, William
Mann, Judge George E.
Mann, W. J.
Maupin, James R.
Mayo, Dr. Theodore P.
Mayo, John B.
McCarthy, Carlton
McCarthy, Julian

McKenna, Luke
McKinney, James S.
Miller, Charles M.
Miller, Henry
Miller, J. A.
Miller, Polk
Mills, John
Moore, J. B.
Mordecai, John B.
Morris, Walter H. P.
Morton, T. E.
New, John
Neibors, William
Otey, Gaston
Otto, John
Palmer, Charles T.
Palmore, Thomas W.
Parrot, T. C.
Patterson, R. G.
Pearson, James E.
Pendleton, Hugh T.
Pendleton, Samuel H.

Pistoletti, (bugler)

Place, George
Pleasants, H. R.
Pollard, Thomas
Potts, John
Price, Overton
Pryor, John
Puryear, H. H.
Ragland, John S.
Rennie, Rev. Joseph R.

Roan,

Roark, C.
Robinson, Andrew
Robinson, Leigh
Robinson, R. Calvin
Robinson, T. V.
Scruggs, George F.
Selden, John
Semple, G. W.
Shook, Henry C.
Skinker, Charles R.
Slater, William L.

Slaughter, Thomas W.
Smith, H.
Smith, Thomas A.
Smith, W. A.
Smith, W. G.
Sutton, Charles W.
Taliaferro, John C.
Tallman, W. H.
Tatum, L. B.
Temple, B. Brook
Temple, Roy
Terrell, Joseph
Timberlake, L. W.
Tinsley, James G.
Tompkins, M. W.-
Trent, Stephen
Tuck, E. J.
Tuck, W. C.
Vest, John W.
Waldrop, John

Yates,

Walford,

Wallford, Ed. F.
Watkins, Samuel V.
Welford, R. Corbin
Welford, William N.

Westheimer,

Wharton, John J.
White, W. T.
Williams, C. U.
Wilson, Joseph J.
Wingfield, W. T.
Wingo, W. J.
Winn, C. H.
Winston, James D.
Winston, William C.
Woodhouse, J. G.
Worsham, L. W.
Worsham, W. G.
Wright, Hon. T. R. B.
Yancey, Stephen D.
James A.

THIRD COMPANY.

Roll of the Third Company, as mustered into the service of
the State of Virginia, as published in Richmond daily
papers, and preserved in a scrap-book in the Virginia State
Library.

Captain Robert C. Stanard.

First Lieutenant E. F. Moseley.

Second Lieutenant John M. West.

First Sergeant A. J. C. Dickenson.

Second Sergeant B. H. Smith.

Third Sergeant H. L. Powell.

Fourth Sergeant W. B. Gretter.

First Corporal . . .-• . . . . H. C. Carter.

Second Corporal A. C. Porter.

Third Corporal H. C. Tinsley.

Fourth Corporal R. M. Venable.

Privates:

Armistead, — . — . Estill, Henry

Archer, A. B. Flournoy, John J.

Anderson, Joseph J. Gardner, M. H.

Argyle, Joseph W. Garrett, Ashton

Arents, George Gretter, F. P.

Archer, W. O. Gordon, E. C.

Boisseau, Thomas - Houston, John W.

Bullington, Heber Hufford, D. S.

Brown, R. B. Harwood, Charles W.

Brooks, M. G. Hart, George

Courtney, W. B. Holladay, Alexander L.

Cardozo, Charles E. Hutcheson, John H.

Carr, Dabney G. Hunt, Claiborne

Crump, E. M. Jones, R. W.

Chandler, C. S. Johnson, George E.

Eskridge, A. P. Lewis, Lucien

Eckles, I. A. Liggan, S. H.

Lumpkin, L.
Lynham, J. A.
Lorraine, E. C.
Morris, E. P.
Miller, James M.
Manders, J. M.
Manders, John
McCabe, W. G.
Mann, William M.
Mann, Charles W.
Nicholas, Sidney S.
Paine, William P.
Pairo, Thomas W.
Priddy, Robert B. D.
Quarles, Thomas W.
Reed, W. M.

Redd, L. W.
Roberts, W. H.
Ratcliffe, William P.
Scott, P. G.
Snead, William J.
Saunders, William PL
Smith, Rufus G.
Tuck, W. T.
Thaxton, George D.
Thornton, Henry F.
Utz, J. S.

Wakeham, John K.
White, William L.
Winn, William H.
White, W. S.
Williams, Charles W.

List of Engagements in Which the Third Company
Howitzers Participated.

Bethel Church, June 10, 1861.

Drewry Skirmish, July 5, 1861.

Ellerson's Mill, June 30, 1862.

Gaines' Mill, July 1, 1862.

Frayzer's Farm, July 3, 1862.

Maycock Landing, August, 1862.

Charlestown, October 16, 1862.

Williamsport, Md., September 19, 1862.

Fredericksburg, December 13, 1862.

Catherine Furnace, May 2, 1863.

Chancellorsville, May 3, 1863.

Winchester, June, 1863.

Gettysburg, July 3 and 4, 1863.

Mine Run.

Spotsylvania Courthouse, 10th, 12th, and 18th May, 1864.

Pole Green Church, June 1, 1864.

New Market Heights, August 14 and 16, 1864.
6

Deep Bottom, September 29, 1864.
Laurel Hill Church, September 29, 1864.
Darbytown Road, October, 1864.
Deatonsville, April 6, 1865.
Appomattox Courthouse, April 9, 1865.

April 9, 1865.

Roll of Officers and Me?i Present at the Last Engagement of
the Third Company Richmond Howitzers.

Captain B. H. Smith, Jr.

First Lieutenant Henry C. Carter.

Second Lieutenant Wm. Plumer Payne.

funior Second Lieutenant . .Wm. M. Read.

First Sergeant W. B. Gretter.

Second Sergeant Geo. D. Thaxton.

Third Sergeant L. Lumpkin.

Fourth Sergeant Wm. S. White.

Second Corporal M. H. Gardner.

Third Corporal P. A. Sublett.

Fourth Corporal O. V. Smith.

Seventh Corporal J. J. Flournoy.

Eighth Corporal T. V. Brooke.

Commissary -Sergeant . . . W. J. Sydnor.

Privates.

Anderson, J. J. Bernard, D. W.

Armistead, W. M. Bowles, A. S.

Austin, John M. Crump, J. A.

Austin, T. H. Cullen, E. F.

Bullington, Heber Cardoza, E. S.

Boisseau, T. Casey, J. E.

Boisseau, C. Chew, P. H.

Barksdale, H. Chastain, J. B.

Brooke, Richard Clark, Samuel

Brent, W. C. Davis, S. N.

Burwell, D. S. Donnan, David

Ellett, E. J.
Evans, H. T.
Fourqurean, Joseph M.
Fourqurean, M. U.
Fourqurean, C. B.
Flournoy, Henry W.
Fisher, W. H.
French, J. H.
Foster, S. M.
Green, W. W.
Goode, R. B.
Gambol, R. J.
Gardner, H. D.
Hammond, J. J.
Herring, W. D.
Harris, J. L.
Harris, J. C.
Jones, J. L.
Jones, E. V.
Jones, W. R.
Jones, W. T.
Jones, H. R.
Jones, T. S.
Johnson, George E.
Keesee, T. O.
Layne, George T.
Lyne, W. H.
Lear, W. W.
Manders, J. M.

Mayo, W. C. A.
Mayo, T. T.
Manders, John
Miller, T. M.
Mahoney, E. N.
Majors, S. C.
Morgan, John H.
Porter, P. B.
Porter, G. W.
Porter, D. E.
Piet, W. A.
Puller, W. B.
Powell, J. P.
Powell, T. L.
Roper, H.
Sublett, E. H.
Sublett, W. B.
Sublett, C. T.
Smith, W. N.
Santos, A. F.
Sydnor, R. T.
Sheppard, S. C.
Sizer, J. T.
Taliaferro, A. F.
Trice, J. J.
Tyler, E. G.
Winn, E. A.
Winfree, Powhatan
Winfree, Reuben

THIRD COMPANY.
Captains.

Stanard, Robert C.

(Died in service, 1861.)

Moseley, Edgar F.

(Killed at Petersburg, 1864.)

Smith, Benjamin H., Jr.

(Wd, Charlestown, Va„ Oct. 16, 1862.)

Lieutenants.

West, John M.
Utz, James S.

(Killed, Fredericksburg, Dec. 13, '62.)

Carter, Henry C.

(W'd, Charlestown, Va., Oct. 16, 1862.)

Payne, William Plummer
Read, William M.

Orderly Sergeants.
Dickinson, J. C.
Porter, Algernon C.

(Killed at Gettysburg, July 3, 1863.)

Gretter, William B.

Sergeants.

Powell, Hugh L.
Tinsley, Henry C.
White, William L.
Wakeham, John K.

(Kil'd, Catberine Furnace, M'y 2/63.)

Thaxton, George D.

(W!d, Spotsylvania C. H., May 10, '64.)

Lumpkin, Leonzio

(W'd, Spotsylvania C. H., May 10, 64.)

White, William S.
Quarles, Thomas H.
Sydnor, William J.

Corporals.

Venable, Richard M.
Smith, Oscar V.
Hunt, Claiborne B.
Sublett, Peter A.
Gardner, Miles H.

(W'd, Darbytown Road, Oct. 27, 1864.)

Flournoy, John J.

Brooke, T. Vaiden
Roberts, R. R.

(Wounded at Fredericksburg, Decem-
ber 13, 1862, and on Darbytown
Road, October 27, 1864.)

Howard, Edward C.

(Kil'd, Spotsylvania C.H., M'y 10,'64.)

Guidon.
Fourqurean, Charles B.

Privates.

Alsop, Boswell
Anderson, Joseph J.

(Wounded, Cbancel'sv'le, May 2, '64.)

Andrews, A. J.

(Wounded, Gettysburg, July 3, 1863.)

Archer, Alexander B.
Archer, Burke
Archer, W. S. <
Arents, Frederick
Arents, George A.
Argyle, Joseph W.

Armstead, W. M.
Austin, J. M.
Austin, T. H.
Barksdale, H. W.
Barksdale, T. W.
Bass, H. O.
Bass, Robert P.
Benthall, John
Bernard, D. W.
Blain, Randolph H.

Blanks, G.
Bohannan, Joseph T.

(Kil'd, Spotsylvania C.H.,May 10,'64.)

Boisseaux, C. C.
Boisseaux, T.
Bowles, A. S.
Breeden, Haskins
Breeden, W. J., Jr.
Brent, William C.
Brooks, M. G.
Brooke, Richard
Brown, Birley R.
(Killed, Charlestown,Va.,Oct. 16,'64.)

Bugg, John R.
Bullington, H. C.

(W'd, Spotsylvania C. H., May 10,'64.)
Burwell, Daniel S.
Cardozo, Charles E.
Cardozo, Edward S.
Cardwell, P. H.
Carlton, George

(Died in service.)

Carr, Dabney J.
Cassidy, James E.

(Killed, Charlestown,Va., 0c. 16, '62.)

Casey, J. E.
Casey, J. K.

Chamberlain, Richard C.
Chandler, R. C.
Chastain, James B.
Chew, P. H.
Clarke, Samuel O.
Cottrell, J. T.
Courtney, W. B.
Cox, B. H.
Cropper, George T.
Crump, E. M.
Crump, John A.
Cullen, Edward F.

(Wou'd, Frayzer's Farm, July 3, '62.)

Davis, S. H.
Donnan, David
Eaton, P.
Echols, J. A.
Ellett, E. J.
Eskridge, A. P.
Estell, Harry

Evans, H. Tate
Fisher, W. H.
Flournoy, H. W.
Foster, G. M.
Fourqurean, J. M.

(W'd, Spotsylvania C. H., May 10/64.)

Fourqurean, M. H.
French, J. H.
Gambol, R. J.
Gardner, H. D.
Gardner, Miles H.

(W'd, Darbytown Road, Oct. 27, '64.)

Garrett, Ashton
Gildersleeve, R. B.
Goode, R. B.
Goode, W. E.
Gordon, Rev. E. C.
Green, W. H.
Green, W. W.
Gretter, F. P.
Gwinn, W. D.

(Killed, Darbytown R'd, Oct 27, '64.)

Hall, Charles
Hammond, J. Thomas
Hardwicke, J. T.
Harris, J. C.
Harris, J. L.
Hart, George
Herring, C. O.
Herring, W. D.
Hogg, Thomas
Houston, Archer
Houston, John W.
Houston, Rev. M. Hale
Huffard, D. S.
Hutchins, I. H. Jr.

(Died in prison.)

Hutchinson, J. H.
Jeter, F. A.
Johnson, George E.
Jones, A. O.
Jones, H. R.
Jones, Henry
Jones, I. L.
Jones, R. W.
Jones, Rev. E. V.

Jones, T. S.
Jones, W. Roy
Jones, W. T.
Keesee, J. M.
Keesee, Thomas O.
Lorraine, E. C.
Lyne, W. H.
Layne, George T.
Lear, J. S.
Lear, Rev, W. W.
Levy, D. A.
Lewis, Lucien
Liggan, S. H.
Lindsay, J. H.
Lyell, George J.
Lynham, John A.
Mahoney, F. J.
Mahoney, E. N.

(W'd, New Market, Aug. 16, 1864.)

Majors, S. C.
Manders, J. M.

(W'd, Spotsylvania C. H., May 10/64.)

Manders, John
Mann, Charles W.
Mann, W. M.
Matthews, W. D.

(Killed, Fredericksburg/Jtec. 13, '62.)
Mayo, T. T.
Mayo, W. C. A.

(W'd, Spotsylvania C. H., May 18, '64.)

McCabe, W. Gordon
Miller, H. J.
Miller, James
Miller, T. M.

(W'd, Spotsylvania C. H., May 10, '64.)

Minter, R. M.

(Died in service.)

Moore, J. B.
Morgan, I. H.
Morris, E. P.

(W'd, Spotsylvania C. H., May 10/64.)

Morrison, C. R.
Moseley, S. P.
Moultrie, James
Nicholas, R. C.

(Killed, Fredericksburg, Dec. 13, '62.)

Nicholas, S. S.

O' Conner, Pat
Pagard, Thaddeus
Page, Carter B.
Pairo, Thomas H.
Parker, George F.
Parkhill, Charles
Phillips, Jacob
Piet, W. A.
Plume, A. H.
Plume, Henry
Porter, David E.
Porter, G. P.

(Kil'd, Spotsylvania C.H., M'y 10/64.)

Porter, George W.
Porter, P. B.

(W'd, Spotsylvania C. H., May 10/64.)

Porter, W. D.
Powell, J. P.
Price, R. Channing
Priddy, R. C.
Puller, W. B.
Ratcliffe, W. P.
Redd, L. W.

(Kil'd, Spotsylvania C.H., M'y 10/64.)

Roberts, S. M.
Roberts, W. H.

(W'd, Spotsylvania C. H., May 10/64.}

Roper, George R.
Royall, John B.
Rudolph, Horace W.
Santos, A. F.
Saunders, W. H.
Sclater, W. M.
Scott, George T.
Scott, P. G.
Seay, A. Booker
Shepherd, S. C.
Shepherd, W. G.
Sizer, John T., Jr.
Smith, E. H.

(Kil'd, Spotsylvania C.H., M'y 10/64.)

Smith, George A.

(W'd, Fredericksburg, Dec. 13, '62.)

Smith, James H.
Smith, Rufus G.

(Died in service.)

Smith, W. B.
Snead, W. G.
Sublett, C. T.
Sublett, E. H.
Sublett, J. B.
Sublett, S. F.
Sublett, W. B.
Sydnor, R. T.
Taliaferro, A. F.
Tate, R. H.

(Killed, Darbytown R'd, Oct. 27, '64.)

Taylor, W.
Taylor, W. H. B.
Thompson, W. G.
Thornton, H. F.
Tinsley, John B.
Trice, John J.
Tuck, W. T.
Turner, R. G.

Wood,

Tyler, E. G.
Vandeventer, J.
Venable, A. R.
Venable, McD. R.
Waddell, J.
Waddell, J. E.
Wakeham, Alfred
Wakeham, J. E.
Wakeham, S. A.

(Kil'd, Spotsylvania C.H., M'y 10,'64.)

Wakeham, W.
White, R. C.
Whitlock, Thomas
Winfree, Powhatan
Winfree, R.
Winn, E. A.
Winn, John
Winn, W. H.

(Kil'd, Spotsylvania C.H., M'yl0,'64.)

w. c.

ADDRESS

Judge George L. Christian.

My Friends and Comrades :

I esteem it a great privilege to meet and to greet you
around this board to-night — this night, which commemorates
the erection of our beautiful memorial in this city, and which
also commemorates the anniversary of one of our struggles for
Southern independence and constitutional liberty on the victo-
rious field of Fredericksburg. It is doubtless often asked by
those who were opposed to us in the late war, and by those
among us now who were too young or too craven to take part
in the war, Why do these old Confederate soldiers, whose
efforts are generally now accounted all in vain, who fought for
a cause known now as the "Lost Cause," love to meet and cel-
ebrate those deeds, which brought only ruin and desolation in
their train, and which failed so signally to accomplish what
they wished? Is it natural, they doubtless ask, for men to
love to celebrate and signalize their failures; and especially so
when those failures were accompanied by so much suffering and
sorrow? Well, my comrades, such questions as these never
occur to us, and when propounded from any source the
answers are easy to us. In the first place, our friendships were
formed in the very throes of battle and cemented with our
blood, and such friendships can only be severed by the hand
of death.

Secondly, we knew during the war, and have learned to
know better, if possible, since, that the cause for which we
fought was the cause of right and justice^ and we know the

muse of history will so record it when that record is made up
by any impartial hand. We know, too, my comrades, that the
impartial historian is obliged to add to that record the further
fact, that the struggle we made in that cause was as gallant and
as glorious as any ever made by any people of any land at any
time, and that the struggle on our part is only marked by hero-
ism, patriotism, and devotion to duty.. With the knowledge
of these things, then, as you and I know them to be true, we
love to think and talk over our war deeds — to revive those mem-
ories of the best deeds of our lives; and we wish to teach our
children and our children's children that we have done nothing
of which we or they should be ashamed; but, on the contrary,
we cherish the memories of that struggle as a priceless herit-
age, which we are proud to transmit to our posterity. Did
you ever see a brave and true Confederate soldier who was
ashamed of that fact in his history ? I never did, and never
expect to. Would this be true if our cause was an unholy or
unjust one, or if the struggle we made in that cause had not
been one of which any people might be proud ? To ask this
question is to furnish its answer. In the brief time allotted
me, I have thought I could not employ it better than by the
reading to you some extracts from the official reports of some
of the battles in which we took part, and to let these young
Howitzers, especially, hear what some of the commanding
officers had to say of some of the deeds performed by the old
Howitzer Battalion in our effort to preserve the inheritance
bequeathed to us by our fathers of the Revolution ; for it was
this inheritance, and in the defence of our homes and firesides,
and nothing more, that we staked our lives and our all.
These extracts from these reports are what lawyers term the
"best evidence" of what we did, and they tell their own story
in their own way. They were not written by the ' ' invisible
in war and invincible in peace" writers, but by those who
were "on the ground," who saw what they recorded at the
time the deeds were performed, and by those who were the
very impersonation of truth and of chivalry. I quote as fol-
lows :

General Magruder, in his report of the battle of Bethel, says:
"I cannot speak too highly of the devotion of our troops,
all of whom did their duty nobly ; and whilst it might appear
invidious to speak particularly of any regiment or corps where
all behaved so well, I am compelled to express my great appre-
ciation of the skill and gallantry of Major Randolph and his
Howitzer Batteries."

Col. D. H. Hill, in his report of the same battle, says :
' ' I cannot close this too elaborate report without speaking
in the highest terms of admiration of the Howitzer Battery and
its most accomplished commander, Major Randolph. He has
no superior as an artillerist in any country, and his men dis-
played the utmost skill and coolness."

General Magruder, in speaking of the conduct of his little
army of the Peninsula, which held at bay McClellan's great
army for so long at Yorktown, and in which the Howitzers
bore a conspicuous part, says :

' ' From April the 4th to May the 3d this army served almost
without relief in the trenches. Many companies of artillery
(the Howitzers among them) were never relieved during this
period. It rained almost incessantly. The trenches were
filled with water, the weather was extremely cold, no fires
could be allowed, the artillery and infantry of the enemy
played upon our men almost continuously day and night, the
army had neither coffee, sugar, nor hard bread, but subsisted
on flour and salt meat, and that in reduced quantities ; and
yet no murmurs were heard. * * * I have never seen,
and I do not believe there has ever existed, an army * *'
which has shown itself for so long a time so superior to all
hardships and dangers. The best drilled regulars the world
has ever seen would have mutinied under a continuous service
in the trenches for twenty-nine days, exposed every moment
to musketry and shells, in water to their knees, without fire,
sugar, or coffee, without stimulants, and with an inadequate
supply of uncooked flour and salt meat. I speak of this in
honor of these brave men, whose patriotism made them indif-
ferent to suffering, disease, danger, and death. * * * The

steadiness and heroism of the officers and men of the artillery
of the Peninsula (both heavy and light) were very conspicuous
during the attack on April 5th, and throughout the siege which
followed. The high state of efficiency of this arm of the ser-
vice was mainly due to Colonel Randolph, the chief of artillery
on my staff, who applied to its organization, discipline, and
preparation for the field, the resources of his great genius and
experience. To this intrepid officer and distinguished citizen
the country is indebted for the most valuable services, from the
battle of Bethel, where his artillery principally contributed to
the success of the day, to the period when he was removed
from my command by promotion. He was ably assisted by
Lieutenant-Colonels Cabell and Brown, of the same corps."

Col. H. C. Cabell, who was in immediate command of the
artillery during the siege of Yorktown, says :

1 ' The skill and efficiency of our cannoneers was not only
attested by my own observation, but by the accounts that have
been published in the Northern papers. I ascribe their supe-
rior efficiency to the entire calmness and cool courage of our
cannoneers and their superior intelligence. They had but
little opportunity for practicing, though they had been taught
the principles and science of firing. Their entire self-posses-
sion, united with courage, intelligence, and patriotic zeal,
enabled them to practice the best rule for firing, ' fire with
deliberate promptitude,' and insured their success."

Colonel Brown, in his report of the first battle of Fredericks-
burg, says :

"About 12 o'clock, by order of Colonel Crutchfield, I sent
two Parrott rifles, under command of Lieutenant Graham, and
two similar pieces from the Third Howitzers, under Lieutenant
Utz, to report to Major John Pelham, on the right of the rail-
road. Shortly afterwards I was ordered to send to the same
point four other rifle guns — viz., two ten-pounder Parrotts and
one brass rifle from the Second Howitzers, and one three-inch
rifle from Captain Dance's Battery — all under the command of
Captain Watson, of the Second Howitzers. These eight guns
were actively engaged, and suffered severely from the enemy's

artillery and sharpshooters. I have to lament at this part of
the field the loss of a gallant and most excellent officer, Lieu-
tenant Utz, commanding the Third Howitzers. I cannot
refrain from expressing my high admiration for the conduct of
the officers and men of my command in the action before
Fredericksburg. After marching all of the previous night
they came upon a field strewn with the wrecks of other bat-
teries, and behaved in a manner which elicited the praise of
all who saw them."

In his report of the same battle, and in which all three of
the Howitzer companies bore a conspicuous part, General Lee
says :

"The artillery rendered efficient service on every part of
the field, and greatly assisted in the defeat of the enemy.
The batteries were exposed to an unusually heavy fire of artil-
lery and infantry, which officers and men sustained with a
coolness and courage worthy of the highest praise."

General Lee, in his report of the battle of Chancellorsville,
also says:

' ' To the skilful and efficient management of the artillery
the successful issue of the contest is in a great measure
due. The ground was not favorable for its employment, but
every suitable position was taken with alacrity, and the opera-
tions of the infantry supported and assisted with a spirit and
courage not second to their own. It bore a prominent part
in the final assault, which ended in driving the enemy from the
field of Chancellorsville, silencing his batteries, and, by a de-
structive enfilade fire upon his works, opened the way for the
advance of our troops. Colonels Crutchfield, Alexander, and
Walker, and Lieutenant-Colonels Brown, Carter, and An-
drews, with the officers and men of their commands, are num-
bered as deserving especial commendation."

In Colonel Brown's report of the battle of Gettysburg, he
says :

"In this engagement, as in the one at Winchester, the
officers and men (of his battalion) behaved with the greatest

gallantry, fully sustaining the high character which they had
previously borne."

Colonel Cabell, in his report of the same battle, says:
1 ' I have not the language to express my admiration of the
coolness and courage displayed by the officers and men on the
field of this great battle. Their acts speak for them. In the
successive skirmishes in which a portion of the battalion was
engaged, and when placed in the line of battle near Hagers-
town, their cool courage and energy was above praise. * * *■
Passing over muddy roads, exposed to rain nearly every day,
they bore the difficulties of the march without a murmur of
dissatisfaction. All seemed engaged in a cause which made
privation, endurance, and any sacrifice a labor of love."

General Rodes, in his report of the battle of Hagerstown,
says:

"Here during the 13th, 14th, and 15th July, battle was
again (and eagerly by my division) offered to the enemy.
During these three days my division occupied the extreme
left of the line of battle. Nothing of importance occurred
here, excepting a brisk attack of the enemy's skirmishers
(after being reinforced) and his cavalry upon Ramseur's sharp-
shooters. This attack was made late on the afternoon of July
14th, after the withdrawal of nearly all the artillery and all the
main line of infantry. The enemy had unquestionably dis-
covered this movement. His advance was so firmly and gal-
lantly met by Ramseur's men and the Second Richmond
Howitzers (Captain David Watson), that he fell back with the
loss of many killed and wounded and about twenty of the
cavalry captured."

General Long, in his report of the operations of the artillery
of the Second Corps from October 8, 1863, to January 30, 1864,
in which the second and third companies of Howitzers bore a
prominent part, says:

"Before closing my report, I am particularly desirous of
expressing my gratification at the soldierly qualities displayed
by the officers and men of my command. I ever found them

obedient, active, and energetic, and enthusiastically anxious
to meet the enemy. ' '

He then pays especially high compliments to Colonel
Brown, Colonel Cutshaw, Major Hardaway, and Lieut. S. V.
Southall.

General Pendleton, in his report of the battles of the Wilder-
ness and Spotsylvania Courthouse, referring especially to the
action of May 10, 1864, says :

' ' In the afternoon the enemy, having massed a large force
in front of the Second Corps, left centre, under cover of a pine
thicket, made a sudden attack upon Dole's Brigade, which,
having no skirmishers out in consequence of the close proximity
of the lines, was taken entirely by surprise. The brigade gave
way for a season and the enemy entered our works and cap-
tured Smith's Battery (Third Howitzers), of Hardaway' s Bat-
talion. Our infantry, being soon rallied and reinforced,
repulsed the enemy, with considerable loss, and recovered the
guns. The captain had fought his battery until he was actually
seized by soldiers from the enemy's ranks, and some of his
men were carried off by the retreating foe and not recovered.
On this occasion Hardaway' s guns alone were engaged, and
were exceedingly well served. Two of Cutshaw' s batteries
were hastened up for the crisis and put in position to command
the broken line. " ■ * * * * * *

Major David Watson (formerly captain of Second How-
itzers), second in command of Hardaway' s Battalion, an accom-
plished gentleman, faithful patriot, and gallant soldier, fell at
his post during this attack. Lieutenant-Colonel Hardaway
was also wounded — only slightly, however, though his clothes
were riddled with bullets. He did not leave the field.

In speaking of the action of May 12, 1864, in which the
Howitzers also bore a conspicuous part, General Pendleton
says :

' ' Hardaway' s Battalion was moved forward and posted to
command the rear of the salient (the bloody angle), Captain
Dance in command, Lieutenant-Colonel Hardaway having
been wounded in the act of advancing to the front. Colonel

Cabell also came up from the left with four of his guns and took
position on the left of Dance's. These guns were brought up
and used with admirable steadiness under a severe fire. * * *
On the left, from early dawn, column after column of the
enemy, as it came up to assault, was shivered by the tremen-
dous destructiveness of missiles hurled upon them at close
range from our guns. ' '

In speaking of the engagement on the 18th, he says :

"On the morning of the 18th the enemy again attempted to
carry the line still held by the Second Corps near the scene of
the former conflict. This time, however, he met guns in posi-
tion ready to receive him. His heavy force was allowed to
get within good range of the breastworks. There the guns
under Colonel Carter (Harda way's Battalion and Page's reor-
ganized) opened upon him a murderous fire of spherical case
and canister, which at once arrested his advance, threw his
columns into confusion, and forced him to retreat in good
order. Heavily as he suffered on this occasion, our loss was
nothing; and this was accomplished against a force of twelve
thousand picked infantry by twenty-nine pieces of artillery
alone but well handled."

General Ewell gives substantially the same account in his
report of this engagement.

The foregoing is only a sample of what the reports of the
different battles in which the Howitzer Battalion, or parts of
it, were engaged at different periods of the war, which show
the character of the services rendered by this command in the
struggle of the South for right and freedom. They are only
what I had the time to gather up in the two hours which I had
to devote to that which to me would have been a very * l labor
of love " indeed. In this enumeration, as you will see, I have
omitted entirely the names of the victorious fields of Williams-
burg, Seven Pines, Cold Harbor, Richmond, Gaines' Mill,
Malvern Hill, Manassas, Leesburg, Sharpsburg, Morton's
Ford, Charlestown, North Anna, Petersburg, and many others
which have witnessed the deeds of one or all of these old vete-
ran companies, and to recount which would be worthy of any

tongue or pen that could be employed, and which deeds will
be sung in song and in story when you and I have passed
away, and when our children shall take up the strain where
we leave it off. Carlisle says, ' ' Universal history is nothing
but the record of the individual men who made that history ' ' ;
and so I say to you, my old comrades, that the history of
the fame of the Army of Northern Virginia is nothing but the
record of the splendid deeds of valor and devotion to duty of
the individual soldiers who composed that grand army ; and so
you and I, and every old Howitzer and soldier who did his
duty in that army, is entitled to share both in its glory and in the
fame of its incomparable leaders, which has gone ' ' echoing
around the world."

The heroic names of Randolph, Brown, Watson, Moseley,
McCarthy, Stanard, Jones, Utz, Garnett, Morton, Pendleton,
Maupin, Charles, Burley Brown, and a host of others I could
mention, whose names and deeds we are not willing to let die,
and to commemorate whose virtues we have erected our memo-
rial to-day, will grow brighter and brighter on the roll of fame
of the heroes of our Southland when you and I shall be dead
and forgotten ; and the reason for this will be found in the fact
that these men " died for their State," and for what they knew
then, and what you and I know now, was the Right.

" Eternal right, though all else fail,
Can never be made wrong."

The old Howitzer, then, who served his gun well in the
Confederate army, served his country faithfully at the same
time, and deserves well now at the hands of his countrymen.
The cause for which we fought is not a "lost cause," but is
to-day the only foundation on which constitutional liberty and
the right of local self-government exists in this country, and
the day is not far distant when this will be recognized as true
by every impartial writer or thinker.

But these old Howitzers did not stop their services to their
country when they grounded their well-worn and well-served
arms on the fatal field of Appomattox; they returned from

that field to find the prosperous and peaceful homes from which
they had enlisted four years before, a very picture of desola-
tion, devastation, ruin, and almost of despair.

" Where my home was glad were ashes,
For horror and shame had been there."

■* * * * *

Yes, my comrades, literally —

" We have seen from the smoking village

The mothers and daughters fly ;
We have seen where the little children

Sank down in the furrows to die.
From the far-off conquered cities

Came the voice of stifled wail,
And the mourns and shrieks of the houseless

Rang out like a dirge on the gale."

So that, whilst our surrender almost broke our hearts, this
was but the ' ' beginning of our sorrows. ' ' So sorely did we
find our land and our people, and all that was dear to us,
stricken and smitten by the hand of the invader, who was not
content to war against our armies, but " with fire and sword "
warred against our homes, and our women and children, too.
Nor was this all. We went forth to defend sovereign States ;
we returned to find these States held and treated by the victors
as conquered provinces. Instead of dear old Virginia, we
found in its stead ''Military District, No. 1," over which ruled
for a time, successively, an Ord, a Canby, a Terry, a Stone-
man, and a Schofield. If we had not been used to meeting
and overcoming seeming impossibilities for four years, would
not our hearts have sunk into irretrievable despair as we viewed
this condition of affairs — this land that we loved so dearly,
and all our dear people, and institutions, trampled under the
iron heel of military power, and the country swarming with
the "vilest vermin" in the shape of the camp-follower, the
"carpet-bagger," the "scalawag," et id omne genus, that
ever gathered outside of the regions of the infernal ? Literally,
chaos had "come aerain " nd there was no heart brave

enough, and no hand strong enough, to bring order out of this
chaos but that of the old Confederate soldier. He saw the
great task before him, and with the aid of Providence, with the
help of the purest, the best, the bravest, and the sweetest
women in this world, and with their smiles and benedictions to
cheer him, this old Confederate has reconverted these military
districts into States again, after the "form and fashion" of
their fathers, and as the "Solid South" they form the hope
and mainstay of constitutional liberty in this country to-day.
Not only this, but the camp-follower, the ■ ' carpet-bagger, ' '
and "scalawag" are no more, and to-day the "model com-
munities ' ' of this continent, those in which Christianity and all
of those virtues which it inculcates prevails to the highest
degree, are to be found in this Southland of ours. 'Tis true
we are not rich like our brethren of the North, but we are
developing in material prosperity year by year ; and there are
some things, thank God, which we prize more than money, for
we recognize the truth that —

" 111 fares the land, to hastening ills a prey,
Where wealth accumulates and men decay."

In this work both of the moral and material development
of our land, the old Howitzer has been no laggard. We have
only to look over this city and State to see them in the fore-
front of every walk and profession in life, and it is no arro-
gance to say that they are regarded among those who consti-
tute the bulwarks of society and safety in the country.

W. A. BARRETT. W. M. KEESEE.

BARRETT 5 KEESEE

Machine Works.

Fine Work and Repairs a Specialty.

t^^>^' Mim^'n

Eleventh St., bet. Main and Gary,

RICHMOND, VIRGINIA.

ORGANIZED MS3S.

Assets, : : $650,000.

VIRGINIA FIREl MARINE

n*"*«w*«*«<i«!««www«

Insurance Conf\par\y?

OF RICHMOND*

Home Office, :-: 1016 Main Street.

This old Virginia institution issues a short and comprehensive Policy,

free of petty restrictions, and liberal in its

terms and conditions.

INSURES AGAINST FIRE AND LIGHTNING.

All Descriptions of Property in Country and Town,

Private or Public, Insured at Fair Rates,

on Accommodating Terms.

Agencies in Every Town and County.

WM. H. PALMER, President. W. H. MCCARTHY, Secretary.

S. McG. FISHER, Ass't Secretary.

Foni'qui'ean, price \ Co.

319 and 321 E. Broad Street,
RICHMOND, - VIRGINIA,

Special Bargains in Black Goods and Domestics.

Choice and Beautiful New Laces and Embroideries.

Immense Stock of Cloaks and Wraps of all Descriptions and Prices.

Cloths, Cassimeres, and Notions in Full Assortment.

-£!• Xa^est jHovelties of the Season. •&

FULL RANGES OF THE FINEST GOODS IN

SILKS, VELVETS, FANCY AND STAPLE DRESS GOODS
TRIMMINGS, HOSIERY AND UNDERWEAR.

RGENTS FOR BUTTERICK PATTERNS

OLD DOMINION

Building and Loan Association.

Authorized Capital, - $20,000,000
Subscribed Capital, - 3,600,000

Cash Capital, - - - 800,000

2sTo. 1115 33. ZMZjkiisr Stbeet,

RICHMOND, VA.

LENDS MONEY ON REAL ESTATE ON ACCOMMODATING

TERMS, AND PERMITS SMALL MONTHLY

PAYMENTS ON LOANS.

THE BEST AGENCY KNOWN FOR THE

PROFITABLE INVESTMENT

SMALL SAVINGS.

Considering the safety of the Investment, there is nothing

which pays so well as Building Fund Stock.

Correspondence solicited.

Shares, $100 Each,

payable in instalments of 60 cents per share per month,
or paid up in full for Investors, $50 net, per share.

DIRECTORS :

J. TAYLOR ELLYSON, President ;
Norman V. Randolph, John B. Purcell,

John S. Ellett, ' F. T. Sutton.

CARLTON MCCARTHY,

Sec'y and Treas'r, Box 408.

1 1 . zcx*4? ,o%4.o fxbf.t

Internet Archive Audio

Featured

Top

Images

Featured

Top

Software

Featured

Top

Books

Featured

Top

Video

Featured

Top

Mobile Apps

Browser Extensions

Archive-It Subscription

Save Page Now

Full text of "A souvenir of the unveiling of the Richmond howitzer monument, at Richmond, Virginia, December 13th, 1892 : address of Mr. Leigh Robinson, with rolls of the three companies and lists of battles"

See other formats